May 12,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 23

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier on his preposterous claim

that the Trans City deal was in the best interest of the people of the Province.

Yesterday the Premier tabled in the House a whitewash report

by the suspended Minister of Justice which contained a statement by a senior

civil servant in the Cabinet office, Fonse Faour. I refer the Premier to Mr.

Faour's statement, page 8,

section 8, where Mr. Faour says of the Trans City

deal, and I quote: "This was not the arrangement originally contemplated. The

tender was awarded on the basis that the successful bidder would be the lessor.

The actual arrangement resulted in the financing company being the lessor, in

this case, Confederation Life."

Premier, isn't this statement of Mr. Faour yet more

confirmation that you and your government made the deal with Trans City without

even knowing what the price tag would be?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in one sense it is no such thing

and in another sense the Leader of the Opposition is right. The final lease

payments -

MR. SULLIVAN: At least you are half right. You are a bit

more than you were before.

MR. BAKER: Well, I just wanted to explain the truth of

this. In both the 10-1-'89 bid and Trans City bid, the final lease payments

would not be determined until some time in the future. In other words, the

10-1-'89 bid had a clause in there which allowed the rates to be fixed six

months after the award of the contract. In Trans City, it allowed for the rates

to be fixed at substantial completion of the project. The rates were changing,

obviously, day by day. As a matter of fact, at that point in time they were

heading down, and in that context, the final lease payments could not be known

until the rates were set - in the case of 10-1-'89, six months after award of

the contract, in the case of Trans City, substantial completion of the buildings

- so in that sense that's correct, the final lease payments were not known at

the time.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions now are for the Premier.

After hearing the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

confirm that when the deal was done with Trans City the government didn't know

what the cost would be, I ask the Premier: Isn't it true that the government

shut all but Trans City out of the negotiations - out of the negotiations that

took place after the deal was struck -and didn't give anyone else a chance to

compete with Trans City and their financiers, and isn't that why the Supreme

Court ruled the government violated the Public Tender Act? And because no one

had a chance to compete, isn't it utterly false to say the Trans City deal was

in the best interest of the Province? Isn't it accurate to say that deal was in

the best interest of Tom Hickman, Joe Butler and Bill Case?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to just simply

continue on from my last answer.

Whereas the exact amounts were not set, the substantive issue

of what the rates would be above the long term in the 30-year bonds was set. In

the case of Trans City it was, I believe, 120 basis points above the Bank of

Canada rate at the point of setting the rate. In the case of 10-1-'89, I believe

it is 145 - if my memory serves me correctly - basis points above. So there was

a limit put on it and it was tied to the base rate in Canada with the Bank of

Canada 30-year bond, so that was what would ultimately determine it; the money

value was not determined.

In terms of the second part of the question, which I am now

having difficulty remembering -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: It had to do with patronage.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Yes, now I remember the second part of the

question. The fact that nobody else had an opportunity to bid and that Cabinet

somehow did something to shut out everybody but one company. I believe that was

the gist - yes, okay. We started the process, Mr. Speaker, with I believe

fourteen different proposals before us, from five, six or seven different

companies and there was an interim analysis done which determined the preference

for brick/steel. At that point that left two companies still there and there was

a detailed analysis done. Discussions were held with both companies to determine

the true nature of their bid and so on and to get further details from both

companies. That was an extensive process and the deciding factor in the end was

which would save this Province money. Mr. Speaker, we saved a heck of a lot of

money in this process, I will have hon. members know, I tabled information in

the House a month or so ago which showed that conclusively.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition,

further supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have another question for the Premier, it would be good to

see the Premier on his feet this morning.

MR. TOBIN: He is afraid of you Lynn, he is not getting

(inaudible).

MS. VERGE: I have questions for the Premier about -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - yet another manipulation of the law by his

government. We have just been talking about the Trans City deal which was,

according to the assistant clerk of the Cabinet office, awarded on a different

basis from the tender award. I want to ask now about the matter of the rigging

of the electoral boundaries to suit the interest of the Liberal Party. Now the

Premier, as a lawyer, will realize that the Electoral Boundaries Act, the law of

this Assembly, provides for an impartial non-partisan Electoral Boundaries

Commission. The act specifically says that the chairperson of the Electoral

Boundaries Commission shall be appointed by the chief justice of the Province,

Mr. Chief Justice Noel Goodridge. Now Mr. Justice John Mahoney, as the Premier

realizes, was appointed chair of the Electoral Boundaries Commission by Chief

Justice Goodridge. The legislation further provides that other commissioners be

appointed by the Speaker, before other members of the Mahoney Commission were

appointed by the Speaker.

We have only had one legitimate Electoral Boundaries

Commission. That one legitimate commission produced one report, a report that

cost the taxpayers $400,000. That report called for forty-four districts and

amendments that could lead to a total of forty-five districts.

Now I ask the Premier, how can he condone the tampering with

that process by his suspended Minister of Justice? The suspended Minister of

Justice here yesterday, under repeated questioning, confessed that he tampered

with the process by attempting to have the legitimate commissioner, Mr. Justice

Mahoney, come up with a proposal for more than forty-five districts, and Mr.

Justice Mahoney refused.

Will the Premier admit that the document tabled this week is

a fraud, that this document titled, Honourable Nathaniel Noel, Commissioner, was

not authored by a legitimate commissioner appointed correctly under the

legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I thought I had heard all of the possible

obfuscation that could take place in any question, but I never dreamed that such

fiction could be written.

Mr. Speaker, anybody who wants to can look at the record and

see it very clearly. In accordance with the Statute, the commission was

appointed. Mr. Justice Mahoney was designated by the Chief Justice. The other

members were appointed by Your Honour. They took an action and brought in a

report. They left the government with a report that we were not prepared to

recommend to the House of Assembly, for one simple reason.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: I have no hesitation in saying it; we were

not prepared to recommend it to the House of Assembly, for one simple reason -

it created differential value of voting where none was justified. I can agree

with it and understand it in Torngat Mountains - clearly, no problem; we

specifically provided for it - because it is a largely aboriginal community and

we wanted to make sure that the aboriginal people of this Province, if they

chose to, would have the right to elect somebody who would be an aboriginal, and

I am delighted to say they had the wisdom to do so in the last general election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the second

variation was in the South Coast of Labrador area, and the South Coast of the

Province, because of transportation. We agreed you could have some variation

from a normally accepted standard, but the Goose Bay area, the Labrador City -

Wabush area, are some of the most urban parts of this Province, far more urban

than any part of the Great Northern Peninsula or the South Coast, or with the

exception of Marystown much of the Burin Peninsula, far more an urban community.

How could we justify having a superior voting advantage in communities like that

and not in Grand Falls, Gander, Corner Brook, Stephenville, Port aux Basques,

Burin, Bonavista, and so on. You could not do that. The commission left us with

this recommendation. Okay, reduce the forty-four seats but have four of them in

Labrador, no matter what disparity in voting power it produced. We were not

prepared to recommend that to the House of Assembly. That is why we asked that

same commission to reconsider it in light -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: If members will listen they will

understand. That is why we sent it back to the same commission and asked them to

revise their recommendation in accordance with our specific direction, that it

provide for one person, one vote, with a variation no greater than plus or minus

10 per cent. They came back with a recommendation that still did not comply with

that. We still were not prepared to recommend it to the House of Assembly,

solely for that reason and no other reason.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when the commission said, well, we are not

prepared to reconsider it any further we then asked Mr. Justice Noel to take the

work that was done by the commission and provide for it in accordance with those

strict terms that accepted the commission's recommendation, that there be four

seats in Labrador, and then, Mr. Speaker, take the resultant quotient that was

derived from taking the two urban seats, Menihek and Naskaupi, divide them, and

that was the quotient for the Province. Whatever that produced, that produced

the seats, so that there would be equality of voting power.

You cannot justify that kind of difference unless there is a

compelling reason for it. That is why I have resisted the pressures from all

over this Province to say, give more seats to rural Newfoundland. Look at all

the extra seats going into St. John's. Look at two extra seats going into St.

John's because Waterford - Kenmount is as big as it is, because Mount Pearl is

as big as it is, because Mount Scio- Bell Island is as big as it is.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, there is no justification

whatsoever for giving the citizen in Bonavista, or Clarenville, or Ferryland, or

Fogo, one and a half times the voting power of the taxpayer of St. John's, none

at all, and we will not do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier what

justification did he and his government have for breaking his own law? What

justification did he and his government have for scuttling the one report from

the one legitimately appointed commission, the one and only independent,

non-partisan commission? The commission composed of Mr. Justice John Mahoney,

appointed by the Chief Justice of Newfoundland, and four other commissioners

appointed by the Speaker, calling for forty-four districts under the strict

terms of the amended legislation introduced by the government. What

justification did the Premier have for indulging in gerrymandering, and by what

authority did he and his government appoint Mr. Justice Noel?

Isn't it true that there was no legal authority for

appointing Mr. Justice Noel? Isn't it true that the suspended Minister of

Justice went judge-shopping, and after he couldn't get the legitimate

commissioner, Mr. Justice Mahoney, to go along with his scheme for increasing

the number of seats he went judge-shopping. He approached Mr. Justice Cummings,

Mr. Justice -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as I hear the Leader of the

Opposition constantly proclaim: The government broke this law, the government

broke that law, it sounds like self-proclaimed, infallible judgement delivered

from atop Mount Ignorance. She stands in the House and declares: The government

did this, the government broke this law, as though it were infallible judgement.

The government broke no law. The Leader of the Opposition

knows, as a lawyer and former Minister of Justice, knows very well -

MR. TOBIN: She worked with you, didn't she?

PREMIER WELLS: I failed in my training in that respect, I

guess.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: She knows very well that under the

prerogative of the Crown the Cabinet can appoint anybody, give a commission to

anybody to provide it with advice. The government complied with the law. We

appointed the commission required under the statute and we brought its report to

the House and tabled it. We tabled the report in the House. Now the House

itself, under the law, decides whether to accept that report or do something

else with it. What the government is required to do is to appoint the commission

and bring the report to the House. We did that.

This House, members on both sides, will decide whether to

accept the original report or to accept the report that was provided by Judge

Noel at our request. The House is going to decide that. No law was broken. All

we've done is gathered further information to deliver to the House. For the

Leader of the Opposition to stand here and say we broke the law is a grossly

irresponsible accusation to make. There is no justification for it, no

foundation for it whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, the government will in due course ask this House

of Assembly to make a decision on the electoral boundaries. It will have before

it the full report of the original commission and it will have before it Mr.

Justice Noel's recommendation. The government will give its advice to the House

of Assembly and the House will decide.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Premier,

I'm not alone in saying the government broke the Public Tender Act. The Supreme

Court of Newfoundland Trial Division has ruled the government broke the public

tender act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier confirm that the

electoral boundaries act says in

section 3(3): The chairperson of the boundaries

commission shall be appointed by the Chief Justice of Newfoundland? Will the

Premier confirm that the Chief Justice of Newfoundland, Chief Justice Goodridge,

appointed Mr. Justice John Mahoney? Will the Premier also confirm that the

suspended Minister of Justice and the government hand-picked Mr. Justice Noel?

Mr. Justice Noel was not appointed by the Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Noel

was chosen only after the legitimate chair, Mr. Justice Mahoney, refused to go

along with the gerrymandering, and after Mr. Justice Cummings also declined?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, of course Chief Justice

Goodridge appointed Mr. Justice Mahoney, that is what the law requires. I mean

certain facts are obvious to everybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: No they are not to you.

PREMIER WELLS: I know that - of course he did not appoint

Judge Noel. I just got through telling the House that acting under the

prerogative of the Crown the Cabinet has a total right to do, as the Cabinet of

which the Leader of the Opposition was a member for many years did on numerous

occasions, appoint individuals to be commissioners or advisors to carry out a

specific commission. They should have done it on some more occasions but they

did it on a great many. The Cabinet appointed Mr. Justice Noel to give it

advice.

Now I have already just gotten through explaining it to the

House but in case the hon. member does not understand it I will repeat it, the

original commission, appointed under the elections act, provided the advice that

it did. Its report is tabled in the House. It is open to the majority of the

members of this House to accept that report if they see fit. Now the government

disagreed with it. We were not prepared to recommend it to the House for the

reasons that I have given and for no other reason whatsoever. So we sought other

advice and we have laid that advice before the House. The House has everything.

There is nothing in the law anywhere that precludes the government from seeking

advice from anybody and tabling it in this House. Now the hon. member knows

that. As a lawyer she knows that and she knows the difference. What I don't

understand is how in heaven's name she can so misrepresent the reality. The

reality is very clear. All of it is placed before the House, Mr. Speaker, and

the House will decide.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will give the hon. Leader of the Opposition another

supplementary on this and then I will move on.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A final supplementary

for the Premier.

Is the Premier claiming that he is above the law? How can the

Premier defend trying to falsify this document by labelling it Hon. Nathaniel S.

Noel, Commissioner, when the law says that the commissioner has to be appointed

by the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Mr. Justice Noel was not appointed by

the Chief Justice?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: A former law partner of mine gave me some

advice one time when I was having difficulty explaining to an individual

something that was so obvious that it should not have required any explanation

and his advice to me was: Don't let it bother you. A person convinced against

her will is of the same opinion still.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I cannot hear the hon. member's question.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Natural Resources, more specifically today the minister

responsible for forestry.

Mr. Speaker, the termination of the CAFD the Canada

Newfoundland Cooperation Agreement for forestry development will have, and is

going to have in the future, a major negative impact on the forestry in this

Province. The minister responded to earlier questions in the last session when

he said that there were ongoing discussions with his federal counterparts

concerning this agreement, specifically concerning the Canadian forestry centre

here in St. John's, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister just bring us up to date on

the status of those talks with his federal counterparts?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, my discussions with the federal

minister, relative to the Canada forestry centre have nothing, absolutely

nothing to do with the conclusion of the five year agreement that expired on

March 31, 1995. That five year agreement expired - the federal government, two

years ago, announced they were not going to go into any new agreements. We

accepted that decision after this latest government said that they were not

going to change the decision of the former government and we ourselves put in

$10 million, in this years budget, to replace what was there from the agreement.

We did it, it is done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to see, the

attitude that he gave up two years ago he gave up again today. He is giving up

on forestry totally and forestry has been on the back-burner. He said he put in

$10 million this year. Mr. Speaker, a question to the minister, with regards

specifically to silviculture.

In 1993-'94 it was $6.7 million, in 1994-'95 it is $5.9

million, in 1995-'96 it is down to $5.6 million, and it is still going to go

down. Although the Provincial Government, yes, put in money this year, the

Federal Government now is at zero.

Can the minister tell the House that the government will be

able to commit to at least maintain, if not increase, the amount of funding for

silviculture in this Province for the coming years - not for this year, but for

the coming years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Next year's Budget will come when next

year's Budget comes, Mr. Speaker, but we realize that forestry is a provincial

responsibility constitutionally, and we are going to do what is required to make

sure we manage this resource properly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member

for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, this is the exact problem that

the many people around this Province in the forestry industry are talking about,

the attitude of the minister responsible for forestry, who never talks about

forestry, never brings it up.

Mr. Speaker, we have to ask the questions that the experts

have asked me. They have asked me: What is going to happen with silviculture for

the coming years? Are we in danger? Is this industry in the same danger, headed

the same way that the fishery headed, when the same politicians sat back and

said nothing about it until we hit crisis proportion? That's what the experts

are asking. And I will tell the minister who the experts are to whom I am

referring - not the experts that we are going to use out of New Brunswick, which

you didn't open your mouth about. We are going to listen to the experts in New

Brunswick now. What about the people in our own industry right here? Is this

minister and this government satisfied that there is enough being done to

preserve this industry in this Province? And when are they going to let their

federal counterparts know that there is not enough being done and that there is

a potential crisis in the forestry of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we

are going to ensure there is going to be enough done to manage the forestry

industry properly.

Now, I could speak specifically about silviculture and what

we are putting into it. As I said, we put $10 million into our own provincial

Budget this year to effectively replace what was in the CAFD agreement in

previous years. Out of that, the member is reading a line item that is

designated to silviculture only as part of that. There is other money going into

silviculture this year in this Province. We have approved already $1 million

extra on top of that coming out of the Social Services department for particular

training programs, so add $1 million to that.

In addition to that, as late as Monday of this week, I had

further discussions with the paper industry in this Province, particularly in

Grand Falls, relative to what we are going to do jointly with the paper

companies. We are dealing with both of them in the extra contribution that they

will be making toward silviculture on their limits this year. We are doing,

ourselves, in co-operation with the people who are interested in forestry in

this Province, everything that is necessary, and we are going to continue to do

so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education and Training,

and has to do with the drastic gutting - and I say this despite the fact that he

has contradicted it on Monday or Tuesday in this House - of the ABE programs in

this Province.

Mr. Speaker, there are over 100,000 people in this Province

who have not completed high school education. Will the minister acknowledge that

as of September there will be less than 500 places in the community college

system for upgrading - less than 500 - not the 5,800 that the minister said in

the House on Tuesday? Will he acknowledge that is the case?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and

Training.

MR. DECKER: I genuinely thank the hon. member for that

question. I had hoped it would have come from the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount. I apologize to him; his leader tends to dominate the Question Period

and the poor fellow is confined to the back benches and can't get his question

away.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East might not understand

what has happened here. ABE has not been cancelled in this Province. Here is the

way it works: The community colleges are offering 2,625 people Adult Basic

Education on a part-time basis; in addition to that there are 1,960 people at

the community colleges taking Adult Basic Education full time; added to that,

there are 1,200 full-time Adult Basic Education students in the private

institutions; on top of that there are numerous volunteer agencies providing

ABE; on top of that again there is the TAGS program which has hundreds of people

enroled in it. So I stand here today and say, unequivocally, that there is more

Adult Basic Education being offered today in Newfoundland and Labrador than ever

there was in our history as a Province, or in our history before that as a

nation. That is the absolute, total truth.

Now, what the hon. member might not understand is this: the

Federal Government is backing away from a lot of these programs; that is a fact

which has been stated many times. We are unable to go in and pick up where the

Federal Government chooses to back out. This particular case, the Adult Basic

Education that the hon. member is talking about, is the old Manpower seats and

it is more than a seat in a community college.

The individual goes to the Canada Manpower office and is

sponsored. That individual is given a salary of $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 a year,

whatever it is, babysitting services if required, cost of books and what have

you. All the community college gets is $39 a day to provide that space. What has

happened this year is the Federal Government backed off from their commitment by

one-third which left the colleges to make up with $2.3 million or whatever the

amount was. The community colleges are saying: As a result of that, we are

unable to offer more than these 200 seats. They are there but they are not being

bought.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will ask the hon. member to -

MR. DECKER: But ABE is not wiped out, there is more ABE

than ever before in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has elapsed.

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the

Speaker's gallery, Mr. Gerry Dinn, a former member of this House and a minister

of the provincial Cabinet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would also like to welcome to the public

galleries on behalf of hon. members, twelve students from the Skills for Success

class in Adult Basic Education, accompanied by their teacher, Donna Adams.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the

1994 Annual Report of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual

Report for Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the Workers' Compensation Review

Division, 1994 Annual Report.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, as we announced yesterday -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Just a brief point of information, Mr.

Speaker. Yesterday our Commissionaires asked me if I could bring a sample of the

ore from Voisey Bay so they could see it. I did bring it this morning and I know

that there is a lot of other interest in the House, people may see it and

especially with former Minister Dinn in the audience, I would like to tell him

that he is welcome to see it.

MR. SPEAKER: Points noted.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I gather my friend and

colleague is not tabling a piece of rock.

Your Honour, would you please call Order No. 3, second

reading of the Advance Health Care Directives bill, please?

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Advance

Health Care Directives And The Appointment Of Substitute Health Care Decision

Makers." (Bill No. 1).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is almost precisely the same as the

bill which received second reading from the House in the session that ended

effectively at Christmastime last year. It had not gone forward to Committee

stage and third reading because after second reading, the bill was referred

under our Standing Orders to the Standing Committee, the

section 84 Committee on

Social Services. There were one or two people who wished to be heard with

respect to the bill and the Committee was chaired by my friend, the Member for

Trinity North, who is absent, he has the 'flu this week. I believe they heard

two or three persons representing groups, or themselves, as may have been the

case and, in due course, presented a report here in the House; subsequently the

Cabinet addressed the report and we have made one or two changes in the bill,

which I will highlight as I go through it. I don't propose to repeat what I said

during the initial second reading debate. The bill won widespread support. I

think in fact members on all sides supported it. I think there is a consensus

among all of us that this bill is a step forward and should be made law. Perhaps

though I should say a word or two just so we know what we are doing when we make

law, as we will if we adopt this bill.

The purpose of the bill and the policy embodied in it is very

straightforward.

Section 3 sub (1) is the provision that addresses it. It allows

every person who is competent to make a binding direction with respect to his or

her future health care decisions, and health care decisions, members will note,

are defined with great precision. Unfortunately, it took a lot of words to

achieve that degree of precision and they are defined in Subsection 2 (

b) of the

bill that is now before the House.

Advanced health care directives can take one or both of two

forms. An individual may appoint another person to make the decisions and

delegate to him, or to her, the power to make these decisions when the time

comes, or an individual may say, when the time comes that certain decisions need

to be made, a decision of this nature needs to be made, here is what my decision

is. In each case those decisions are legally binding, they are enforceable at

law, and that works to the advantage, Mr. Speaker, of both the person who is

receiving the care, the patient, the person who has made the directive or

appointed the substitute decision maker, on the one hand, and on the other hand

the health care professional providing the care.

Members will note that we have defined health care

professional very widely. We have defined it to include, in addition to doctors

or lawyers, the administrators of health care facilities, and that reflects the

reality that in many cases these directives will come into play in a situation

where an elderly person living in an institution comes to the point where he or

she needs health care decisions to be taken.

Now, that is what the bill does, Mr. Speaker. It does it, I

think, very effectively. The rest of the bill, almost without exception is

simply the legal provisions necessary to carry that policy into effect, the

policy set out in

Section 3. We have however done one or two other things that I

want to be sure the House is aware of, and we can address and deal with as we

believe appropriate here, all fifty-one of us at this stage.

We have also attempted, and I believe successfully, to

address one of the most vexing problems of all in real life, basically what I am

told by the consultation process, which I may remind the House has been a very

widespread consultation process on this headed by Sister Elizabeth Davis who I

believe now refers to herself simply as Elizabeth Davis. She is now the Chief

Executive Officer of the St. John's Health Care Corporation and was formerly the

Executive Director of St. Clare's Mercy Hospital, and Dr. Harry Watts who has

been for many years the Medical Director or Executive Director, whatever the

title is, of the Western Memorial Hospital in Corner Brook and a former

President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association.

These two people have led a widespread consultation process.

They have met with me several times.

MR. TOBIN: Is she still a sister?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I say to my friend for Burin -

Placentia West that I understand Sister Davis is still in Holy Orders. She is

still a religious, to use the term in its precise sense, but for professional

purposes she refers to herself as, I guess, Ms Elizabeth Davis. She is still in

Holy Orders. In fact the last time I saw Ms. Davis she was not wearing a

religious habit, she was wearing ordinary clothes, but then she works day by day

running this very large hospital corporation. In fact the hospital corporation,

the St. John's Health Care Corporation, whatever the correct name of it is,

spends about 10 per cent of the total current account expenditure of the

Province. It is a very large operation.

In any event there has been a widespread consultation

process, and one of the problems that came to the fore during this that we have

addressed is this, in fact we tried to address all the problems that came to the

fore, but one in particular is this. I am told that many times a problem comes

up, when usually an older person, but it does not have to be, usually an older

person comes to the point where he or she needs decisions taken. Is a certain

course of treatment continued? Is a certain course of treatment discontinued,

and so forth? There are a number of family members around. Some have stayed here

in Newfoundland or Labrador and some have moved on to another part of Canada for

whatever reason. They all gather around, and I am told fights - not necessarily

physical fights - but strong differences of opinion come. Almost inevitably the

sons and daughters or nephews and nieces or grandchildren here in Newfoundland

or Labrador who have been seeing mother and father regularly and dealing with

them, say: Mother made it quite clear that there were to be no heroic measures.

That when the time came - my friend for St. John's East Extern is nodding; he

may have heard or run into this kind of situation - let me go with decency and

dignity. Knock down the pain but none of this fancy-dancy stuff, I don't want an

extra two weeks if it comes about because I've got tubes in me, and all the

things that advanced medical science can do.

So that is the wish that these people convey to the health

care givers. The sons and daughters who perhaps moved away and not been home

very often and not been home for a long time, for whatever reason, say: No, you

have to give mother - my friend for St. John's East Extern is nodding again;

obviously he has heard of this or run into it - you've got to do anything you

can for mother, and if it means she has to stand upside down with tubes going

into her to try to keep her alive for a bit, you have to do it. The most

terrible, agonizing, anguished discussions take place.

Of course, at this stage it would be easy if mother could

give a decision, but this is all premised on the presupposition that mother has

lost the ability to communicate a decision or to take a valid decision, and

you've got the family in this terribly anguished position, and then you've got

the health care professional caught right squarely in the middle.

There are provisions in this act - I believe it is

section 10

- which say how the decision-making process falls from there. In fact, it is

indeed

section 10. Members who have ever had occasion to deal with the intestate

succession act will recognize that it is the same scheme there. We simply take

out the degree of kinship, we set out the degree of kinship, and the closest kin

get first call.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for Burin -

Placentia West. I won't be long, but I do want to make sure we know....

There are one or two changes in this bill that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No. In fact, I say to my friend for

Ferryland who is usually indefatigable, and no doubt on this, there are five or

six. Let me simply go through the bill and draw the attention of the House to

the changes.

Section 5(3)(

a) is new. That raises a very major issue which

I wanted to make sure we have set out our policy on. What is the provision, what

is the legal situation, with respect to allowing a person who is not competent -

now throughout, I stress to the House, Mr. Speaker, we are going on the

presupposition that the person involved is not competent. Because if he or she

is competent then he or she takes the decisions. Of course a person can revoke

these advanced health directives at any time as long as you are competent to do

it. But we have a person who is not competent.

Now, there comes a situation where the medical people say: We

would like to enrol this person in a research program, a valid, accepted

research - this isn't experimental stuff, but a valid research program developed

and administered in accordance with the protocols. These go on throughout the

country. There is nothing bad or unusual or mysterious or hidden in them. But

the fact remains that here you have a person who is not capable of making a

decision himself or herself or of communicating that, and the suggestion is that

we should enrol this person in a research program. Which may or may not be

invasive. It could be any one of a wide variety of procedures or data gathering

processes.

Should the substitute decision maker have the right to

consent to that? There is a big argument. There are two valid sides. We have

come down on the side that says: Unless when I make my health care decision I

specifically empower my substitute decision maker to consent to enrol me in a

research program, then that decision maker may not do it. That is where we would

say - we believe it is the correct side to be on, but there are two arguments.

There is an argument that says: If it is a proper research program then we

should be able to have the person enroled in it without specific consent.

That is what 5(3)(

a) does. It says: "A consent by a

substitute decision maker on behalf of a maker to medical treatment for the

primary purpose of research shall have no effect unless the substitute decision

maker is expressly authorized in the advance health care directive to give such

a consent." I want to be sure that the House is aware of that.

section 6.2(b), we have changed the requirement for one

independent witness to two independent witnesses. That was the result of a

representation made to the Committee. It is now in line with the requirement for

a will or other testamentary document.

We have made a change in subsection (4) of

section 10. We

have added the words, `a substitute decision maker referred to in that

subsection'. That makes it clear that the provisions of subsection (4) of

section 10 apply, notwithstanding subsection (1). The wording is simply - the

drafters, I think, have made it a little clearer; but there is a change there.

Section 21 is new and I want to draw this to the attention of

the House as well. The common law - and in the absence, of course, of the

statute law, common law is the governing law - the common law provides that none

of us owns his/her body after death. That may be a difficult concept to grasp

but what it means -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) leave it behind.

MR. ROBERTS: I don't know about the hon. gentleman but

most people do in fact leave it behind, yes. But, no, it doesn't belong to ones

heirs nor can one make a binding declaration, at common law, as to what is to be

done with one's body. That is the way the law - the responsibility belongs to

what is called one's personal representative and that is in quotes. That is a

legal term and the law, of course, says that there must be a decent disposition

of the body. You can't just shove Aunt Jemima up in the shelf - or Uncle Timmy,

shove him over the side into the landwash and let him be. You have to make a

decent, proper and humane disposition of the remains, of course.

If, for example, I leave a directive - when I was in practice

people would come and say: I am going to put it in my will. I would say: Well,

it is not legally binding, in any event, but I have to tell you, in most cases,

the will is not opened until some time after the funeral.' I know there may have

been cases where Aunt Sarah dies and as soon as the poor lady - as soon as the

word comes the lady is gone they all rush to get the will to see what happened

to her fortune. But in real life, I mean, in the process of grieving of death

the will is incidental. So if you leave it in the will, you are long gone by the

time they see what you said; but, in any event, it is not legally binding. So if

I wish to be cremated and my personal representative doesn't subscribe to

cremation, then there is no way that I can legally enforce my views. Well,

section 21 will now provide a person in that position with the right to do it. A

person may, in an advance health care directive, give instructions with respect

to the disposition of his/her body after death. That is legally binding and must

be carried into effect.

Subsection (2) deals with a situation - we have a Human

Tissue Act; while we cannot see what happens to our body, we can make a

disposition of parts of our body. In fact, that is legislation that I sponsored

in the House twenty-five years ago when I was Minister of Health, the Human

Tissue Act. I think we now -

MR. WINDSOR: Would you permit a question?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, of course.

MR. WINDSOR: I was advised the other day, the new

driver's license with the photograph on it, does not now contain the

section

that you could sign to - you know, that was always on your person in case of an

accident?

MR. ROBERTS: I don't know that. My birthday is in

September so my driver's license isn't up for renewal yet.

MR. WINDSOR: Mine isn't either, it's just what I was

told.

MR. ROBERTS: I just don't know the answer. I know the

present one has a space on it -

MR. WINDSOR: To sign.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, and presumably we all have a driver's

license with -

MR. WINDSOR: An organ donor card that you sign.

MR. ROBERTS: I don't know, my friend the -

MR. WINDSOR: There is no provision on the new driver's

license.

MR. ROBERTS: Well assuming that is the case, I hope we

can do something about it. In any event, the point is obviously a valid one but

perhaps my friend, the Member for Mount Pearl would pursue it with my friend.

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: How can you put it on a piece of plastic?

MR. ROBERTS: In any event, we have - subsection 21

(2) provides that where there is a conflict between a directive and a Human Tissue

Act declaration, the later shall prevail, which we think is a reasonable one.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have added a provision that the act

will come into force on July 1, not on assent, and the reason for that is, July

1st is not a long time away.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I will come back to that.

Let me just say now that the discussion of drivers' licences

appears to have simmered down a little bit, that the delayed effectiveness is

the result of a request from the hospitals and the health care people.

Now, my friend, the Member for Ferryland had a question?

MR. SULLIVAN: It is my understanding - I compared it to

the previous one, in clause 15. I did not think it was in the previous one where

it says, "... the doctor shall make a statement in the medical record of the

maker..." Isn't that a new sentence?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is still -

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I am sorry; the word has been changed

to track, I believe, with the Hospitals Act which uses the word `records'.

I must say to my friend, the Member for Ferryland, the law

clerks didn't highlight it on the copy they gave me, so he can have a job as an

assistant law clerk any time he wants. We would be glad to have him, with his

very proper and very effective attention to detail. He, like me, believes that

the devil often lies in the details, and that is true in a lot of these things.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I shall say nothing more. If there

are concerns or comments I will try to address them when I respond in second

reading. I must say to my friend, the Member for Grand Bank that I hope he has a

restful weekend. He is getting testy. If he is not careful, the stridency of his

new leader will wash over on him and, I tell him, it will ruin his life. A man

who has been successful, beloved, liked, re-elected, effective, will become all

the negatives of all those things, so I hope he has a restful weekend. I know

that he will be going home, he often does, and I am sure that if he takes a wee

drop it will be from a bottle with a stamp on it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I can assure the minister (inaudible), I

guarantee you, the bottle will have a stamp on it.

MR. ROBERTS: Not only that, that the stamp will not have

on it a picture of President Chirac, or whoever the French authorities put on

their stamps.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by reading a quotation

he may have been a Member of the House of Commons of England, if memory serves

me - John Stewart Mill - and in the course of some reading recently this came to

me. I think it is from `On Liberty', which is his essay on political liberty.

Mill was a 19th Century Liberal. Today many of the views would be where the

extreme right wing of the Tory Party is, because of the way the world has moved,

but in his time he was a very advanced thinker, and his writings on personal

liberty, I think, would still commend themselves to members on all sides of the

House as they very much reflect the values which are at the core of our society.

Here is what Mill said, "Each is the proper guardian of his

own health, whether bodily or mental and spiritual." Now, he said `his' in those

days; today he would say `his or her' in this gender neutral language we now

have, but - "Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily or

mental and spiritual. Mankind..." - today person kind - "Mankind are greater

gainers by suffering each only to live as seems good to themselves, than by

compelling each to live as seems good to the rest."

Now that is a very profound thought, and I suspect members on

all sides would subscribe to it. That thought is mirrored now in

section 7 of

the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada. Everyone has the right to life,

liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived, thereof,

except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. It is

essentially the same thought.

Mr. Speaker, I put forward this bill because in my judgement,

in my submission, the bill is an embodiment of the thought that we are each

responsible for our own, we are accountable for our own, and this bill gives us

a way to carry that thought into effect in the most vital and most personal way

with our own health care, particularly when the point comes when any one of us

has lost the ability to give directions with respect to that care.

I commend the bill to the House, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have had an opportunity to look at this before. and there

are very few changes and they are very minor. I didn't see here - the Government

House Leader can probably comment on this.

Regarding a directive put forward for the substitute decision

maker, there is no provision really to register that formally as such because it

may come into a problem. I expressed that, I believe, previously when it was

tabled, the bill came up previously. Otherwise, in the case of someone's death

and decisions had to be made or somebody was incompetent, it is important that

the directive would be passed on to the appropriate authority to make that

decision. There may be a problem in getting that directive to the proper person

for the decision making process there. Is there a registry of directive?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there is no provision in the

bill for a registry comparable to the registry of deeds or the registry of bills

- that kind of registry. Sections 17 and 18 are an attempt to deal with the

problem which my friend raises, which is a perfectly legitimate concern, in my

view.

Section 17 says: "A health care professional who has a copy

of an advance health care directive shall include it in the maker's medical

record."

Section 18 puts an obligation on the person who makes an advance health

directive to communicate its contents to a health care professional.

Section 18

(2) says that: "Where the maker was incompetent upon admission to a... facility

or is being treated outside..., the health care professional... [shall make]

reasonable inquiry as to the existence of an advance health care directive...."

That we think is as far as we can go, but I would say to my friend, if

experience proves that there is a better way to do it, we would be prepared to

ask the House to address it. That is what we've tried to do here.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. It certainly is a concern

because not all of us - I know it is probably as close as possible without

having an official registry of directives and so on. That way, in the case of

somebody being rendered incompetent, there can always be a registry where you

can revert to find out if there are any directives on record there from that

person. I guess that would probably be the surest way to ensure the directives

get to the decision maker and -

MR. ROBERTS: It is very cumbersome.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is a cumbersome process, I know,

and there are costs involved with that process, too, of course.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and that may work fine, and it is

quite possible.

The minister mentioned in clause 5 (3)(a), in addition to

"medical treatment for the primary purpose of research". It specifies in this

instance, and also regarding the disposition of the body, there must be the

specific statements in that directive. In other words, really what the minister

was saying is that a person cannot give, I interpret, a blanket approval in the

directive to a decision maker to make all the decisions with respect to any

aspect pertaining to a decision maker that the person wouldn't have had to make

if the person were competent.

MR. ROBERTS: That is correct. If you want your decision

maker to be able to put you into a research, you must say in whatever words -

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: - I expressly authorize them to put me in a

research program.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. So the word "research" would have to

be mentioned.

MR. ROBERTS: Or (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There is no one blanket statement

transferring that decision making to that directed decision maker with blanket

approval to make all decisions pertaining to any future health decisions for me

as an individual. In other words, it would have to be specified.

MR. ROBERTS: Again, if the hon. gentleman....

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. My friend is correct, Mr.

Speaker. We believe this is the right way to approach this issue. As the bill

stands, if one wants to empower a decision maker to do one of three things -

either or all of three things - they must be specifically authorized. One is

medical treatment for the primary purpose of research. That is new. It was not

in the bill we saw before Christmas. The other two are sterilization that is not

medically necessary, and three is the removal of tissue from the body while

living for transplantation for the purpose of education or research.

In each case, we believe that if you take the time to make

the advanced health care -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, maybe I missed one but I want to draw

it particularly to the House because there has been a big discussion about it,

and if I am misinformed I apologize I have just been going on the notes I have

been given by the people who drafted the bill, but in any event the point is, as

the bill stands, to do any of those, you must give specific permission to your

personnel.

We think what will happen is that the hospitals and the

nursing homes will address this as people come in and ask people to put their

minds to these issues and then people will make their own decisions and we will

carry on from there, but my friend's

interpretation of the bill is correct.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My biggest concern there was that, by not having the

provision to give blanket approval for any decisions, we may jeopardize the

opportunity for somebody, a decision-maker, to use a certain medical treatment

for the purpose of research and that might hamper research efforts more so in

that effort unless it is specifically stated there, so -

MR. ROBERTS: That (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, there would have to be an education

process, whether it is through nursing homes or through hospitals or whatever to

be able to inform people that this must be specifically stated, if not it might

jeopardize those areas where you need specific request and that would be a

concern of mine, but I didn't notice that; actually, the Member for St. John's

East said, when I went through it and compared it with the previous bill, I

didn't notice any difference there either unless I missed it. So overall, the

intent of this, and I had an opportunity before to address it, it is good, it

provides an opportunity for somebody who becomes incompetent to be able to have

appropriate decisions made for their care rather than to have somebody who is

far removed from that individual there, so it is a proper line or proper rank I

guess, or pecking order from the people from the incompetent person's spouse

right down the line to the health care professional.

The gist of this certainly is good and I guess we will see

how it works in practice with a few of the points I mentioned there that may

need to be improved on in the future and if there is something that could have

been done I guess time will tell that and if a large number of cases arises,

maybe we will need to get back and make an amendment to it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise in support of the bill as I did when Bill 41

was presented before Christmas of last year and commend the House in bringing

this forward and sending it to a committee. I think, Mr. Speaker, the committee

system, particularly in bills of this nature where there are perhaps a community

of interest on the legislation, there is a particular opportunity for all

members of the House to participate in improving a bill, and in the committee

there were a number of problems noticed, some of them were technical in nature

and I think in dealing with legislation, if there is an opportunity as the

legislation goes through the process to get rid of errors, to look for

difficulties and problems and correct them, then that can be done and in this

case it was done in a number of places where the five or six members of the

committee who look at the bill with a different perspective from the people who

drafted it, the lawyers or the officials in the departments who draft this

legislation, the people who are on the committee look at this legislation with a

fresh look, with the look of someone who may have to implement it are looking

for areas of difficulties and problems in implementing a legislation of this

nature.

Because it is a first, it is probably certain that it won't

be gotten absolutely right the first time but with the committee process at

work, the chances of problems that are there being fixed are increased, and in

fact a couple of the references that the Government House Leader made in

introducing the bill were noticed in the committee and asked that they be

changed; one very simple one found in clause 22 of the bill, the drafters had

talked about information necessary to make informed advanced health care

decisions on behalf of the maker, that was obviously just an error and we had to

take out the word advanced because -

MR. ROBERTS: Even lawyers make mistakes.

MR. HARRIS: - as the Government House Leader who is a

lawyer, knows even lawyers make mistakes, and so this area was fixed and a

number of other problems were pointed out to us by a couple of lawyers who came

and spoke to the committee and went through in great detail. The Canadian Bar

Association representatives went through in detail the legislation and pointed

out a number of anomalies in areas that ought to be considered and I think the

committee was quite pleased to hear from these two lawyers as to their concerns

on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association as to some of the problems that were

inherent in the bill.

There are still a couple of areas, and perhaps the Government

House Leader can address them, that lead to a little uncertainty. In Clause 6

dealing with the issue of whether a person is competent to make an advanced

health care directive but is unable to sign the directive, Clause 6 Sub

(2) says, "Where a maker is unable to sign the advance health care directive it may

be signed by some other person in the presence of the maker and by the direction

of the maker, in which case (

a) the person signing shall not be the substitute

decision maker or the spouse." The maker is then required to acknowledge the

signature in the presence of at least two independent witnesses, neither of whom

shall be the substitute decision maker.

The question came to the committee as to what signature would

the person signing make? If I am signing on behalf of the maker do I sign my own

signature or do I sign the signature of the person making the directive?

MR. ROBERTS: As in a power of attorney.

MR. HARRIS: The minister says as in a power of attorney,

so I guess you could sign on behalf of, or John Jones by his attorney Pete

Smith. That certainly would make a lot of sense. It was unclear, I suppose, for

lay people reading it as to what would happen there, and it was considered as to

whether some direction should be given in that for confusion purposes. However,

I do not think at the end of the day it is a really practical problem because

whether he signs his own name or somebody elses name the two independent

witnesses have to swear, or attest at least, that person in fact has

acknowledged that the signature was made.

I think Clause 3 is new, but I may be wrong about that, that

if you make a mark other than the signature the maker shall do so in the

presence of at least two independent witnesses. A person can sign a will in the

same manner, just by marking an X or any kind of mark that is designated as his

or her mark, indicating their assent to the directive. Presumably, similar to a

will, in a situation where a person is not literate one would expect that it

would have to be indicated on the health care directive that it was read over to

him, or her, and he or she, appearing to have understood same. Now, lawyers in

those circumstances would be aware of that. There is not much point in having an

advanced health care directive from a person who is in fact illiterate when it

is not clear that has been read over to such a person.

There is one area of this that still could use benefit from

some improvement and that is the area as to how does the hospital know that

there is an advanced health care directive in place? The sections are 9, 17, and

18. Seventeen takes care of the situation when the health care professional has

a copy of the directive and that person would then include it in the medical

records, so that would be part of the record of the hospital, or a doctor.

Section 18 (1) says that the advanced health care directive shall be

communicated to a health care professional.

I presume that obviously places an onus on a person going

into hospital when they are competent saying: look, by the way, should I get to

the point where I cannot give directions or consent, there is a piece of paper

here so would you take this and put it on my chart?

MR. ROBERTS: That is a reasonable burden.

MR. HARRIS: It is a reasonable burden to lay on an

individual, if you are going in the hospital to say: By the way, when I come in

here I am signing my consent form for me, but this only lasts until I am ...

MR. ROBERTS: Jack, I expect the (inaudible) consent form

is modified to say: Do you have a directive?

MR. HARRIS: There is an onus there for an incompetent,

upon admission, for the professionals to make inquiries. Again, in

section 9 it

says the same thing. There is an onus on a health care professional, when there

is an incompetent person, to make a reasonable attempt to determine whether

there is a substitute decision-maker who is available. I am not quite sure why

it is stated that way.

MR. ROBERTS: If they are not available, it is going to be

difficult to communicate with them.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, I suppose the first step is to find out

whether there is an advanced health care directive, and then see... The advanced

health care directive is not mentioned in

section 9, for some reason.

MR. ROBERTS: That is picked up in 18.(2).

MR. HARRIS: I would assume that what is going to happen

is that upon admission to a hospital from here on in the hospital records

people, and the legal advisors to the hospital, would have some provision in

their forms now, upon their admission forms, asking for medical consent to

admission, or asking whether or not you have an advanced health care directive.

It is not in the act, and I just wonder whether that was an oversight or whether

the government believed that hospitals, being very aware these days of the

legalities of what they do, and the potential for legal consequences for what

they do, the assumption being that they would fall into line without any urging

from the Legislature, and in fact do that. I suspect it may come down to the

interpretation as to what was a reasonable inquiry, but it seems that the health

care professional is the one who has the onus, not the institution or the

facility. I wonder if the minister, maybe, may wish to comment on that.

MR. ROBERTS: The health care professional includes the

administrator. We defined it very broadly. Look at the

definitions section. We

defined it far beyond doctors and nurses there.

MR. HARRIS: So that would seem to perhaps cover the point

that if a court were to be asked to answer the question of whether or not a

reasonable attempt was made to determine whether the patient had a substitute

decision-maker, whether that would include a question, upon admission to a

hospital, as to whether or not there was an advanced health care directive in

place, and that may answer the question. I would have been happier to see it

spelled out more plainly in the legislation rather than await the

interpretation

of some lawyer or some court as to whether or not this should or should not have

been done.

I think, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, that we have here a very

good piece of legislation, and I concur with what the Government House Leader

says, that there may in fact be problems that arise as a result of circumstances

that come about after the implementation of the act that could cause a

requirement of there being amendments to it, but that is something that could be

done later. There have been some amendments that have come out of the committee

that could at least close a few of the loopholes and fix up some of the

problems. I don't see any others there, other than the ones I have mentioned

that could be clarified a little bit more in the legislation, but on the whole

it is a very progressive piece of legislation. It is one that is overdue,

because there have been very agonizing problems within families over the last

number of years, and for a long period of time, and there still are, obviously,

when someone becomes mentally incompetent. You always have discussions with

people whose parents or relative has Alzheimer's; they are very agonizing times,

and if a person has the foresight to make their own plans and their own

decisions about what should happen to their medical treatment after they become

incompetent, then that is the best person to make those decisions. It is better

to have me make decisions about my future than have my spouse or my children or

my relatives sitting around and wondering: What are we going to do with poor old

Jack? But if poor old Jack

MR. EFFORD: I would tell them what to do with poor old

Jack.

MR. HARRIS: I certainly wouldn't want the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation to have any say in it. So the best person to

decide what to do with poor old Jack is poor old Jack when he is competent. If I

have the foresight to spell out my wishes in an advance health care directive

giving my spouse or my relatives the clear instructions as to what my wishes

are, then that would make life easier for me and make life easier for them. I

commend the legislation to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the chair of

the Social Services Committee who is ill, and as the acting vice-chair, I wanted

just to have a couple of comments.

First of all, I want to share in the comments made by the

House Leader saying that the process here was a good process. Because there had

been extensive consultation with health care agencies, the legal profession and

other health care people. The widespread consultation has resulted in the

amendments that have been referred to by the Government House Leader. While

there might be some other changes that will occur down the road when it is fully

implemented I think that the bill as it now stands is indeed a very good piece

of legislation. As my colleague for Ferryland has said, we in this party give

the approval for it.

We do have a couple of concerns that have been raised, the

amendments that were referred to. We brought these up at the Committee and we

consulted with the people within the department. We just wanted to say that this

bill is positive. It helps families in a time of crisis. The part that I wanted

to refer to were sections 17 and 18 again, as my colleague for Ferryland did.

In my consultation with some people in the medical profession

they had some concern about making sure that the will or the wishes of the

individual are properly communicated. As people acknowledged, people will visit

multiple numbers of doctors. If the person is competent when they are admitted

to a hospital then there isn't a problem. They can be asked. If a person is not

competent at that point as a consequence of an accident or whatever then the

difficulty becomes in making sure that the last communication, the last

directive, is indeed communicated or finding out where it is. Because a person

may have had this not with a health care professional. It might be within the

family, it might be anywhere.

There is a concern that the health care people or the medical

people would have, although of course

section 19 protects them from liability

for not finding that particular directive; or for, shall we say, the

consequences of having made a decision when reasonable attempts had been made to

find the directive if one indeed does exist. We do have that concern about

making sure that doctors' records or wishes that are left with doctors and the

medical profession are indeed communicated. Not all doctors have standing in

hospitals, so therefore the hospital records may not be consistent with the

family doctor records.

The other concern we would have is a need for in-service, a

need for public information, a need to communicate this by way of advertising,

by notices in the clinics of the medical doctors, notices in hospitals, the need

to let people know that this is an important thing to do. So the need for

appropriate in-service for the health care professionals, nursing homes, a need

to let the general public know, as we do with making a will or whatever, that

this is an important thing for all of us to do. Like a will, it is designed to

reduce the agony and reduce the anxiety at a time of crisis and if it is done

then we can protect our families from these rather difficult decisions. Also, as

the House Leader has said, very often these decisions are made at a time when

the family is in crisis and there is often conflict as to what the right steps

are that should be followed. So, Mr. Speaker, with that in mind I support the

bill and compliment the government and the House Leader for the process that has

been followed.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Government House Leader

speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there is nobody else who wishes

to speak. Let me say to my friend opposite, or whoever is acting as their House

Leader, we will be going on to the Budget very shortly and the gentleman from

Bonavista South adjourned the debate yesterday.

AN HON. MEMBER: His time is up.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, his time is up? Well in many ways it is,

I say to my friend. Alright, I just did not want him to be caught unawares and -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, my friend from Ferryland knows

about that too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: And believe me I understand, more so than

any other member in this House, I understand.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) a lot better with experience.

MR. ROBERTS: Exactly. Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.

members who have spoken. Most of their points I think we addressed during the

course of the dialogue which they allowed to develop and that is a proper way at

times during the second reading in debate but let me just make two or three

points, the drivers license point, which my friend from Mount Pearl raised, is a

valid point. My friend the minister has lent me his license. There is no little

danger, I would ever be able to use it because there is a handsome picture of

the minister on it. He and I are both wearing glasses and -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no such thing as (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: There may not be but let's assume there is

for the moment. I am told what happens is this, when we get our renewal forms

for our licenses - we have what, three year, tri-annual licenses I think now

don't we? Every three years we get them. There will be a space on the written

form that says: Do you wish to make a disposition of your body...? or the kind

of wording we have now on our licenses. When one fills that out and sends it

back in together with cheque, et cetera, to get the new license, the new license

will have on it - I am told over on the left hand side there will be an

indication, a mark, a word or whatever which indicates that the owner of that

license has made a human tissue disposition. Now I cannot go beyond that. The

minister will have to get into it in more detail if members wish and we will

deal with it in that way. Obviously it will be difficult to have a hand written

direction put on what is a plastic card, plasticised and whatever else goes into

it. Anyway that is what I can say about that at that stage. The point is valid

and I understand it is being addressed.

There has been a great deal of discussion, and again properly

so, about what we can do to ensure that a health care professional is aware of

the existence of a directive because unless one is aware of it, there is no way

it can be carried into effect. I can only make two points, both of which I think

have been canvassed so I won't go over them in detail. One is that we have tried

to address the situations we could anticipate and the members referred to the

sections, it is nine, seventeen and eighteen. I won't go over them again but

they each address different situations. Now will they work? I don't know. We

believe they will but as with so many things in life, all that one can do is go

forward and let experience be our guide. If they don't work we will be back in

due course and asking the House to make the necessary changes.

My friend from Ferryland suggested a registry. Now that would

probably work but it would be very cumbersome, very expensive and we don't think

it is necessary or appropriate in these circumstances. Look at the fuss we are

having over registering guns for heavens sake.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are more guns (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. The other point I would make is we work

very closely with the NHA and with the NLMA, the Hospital and Nursing Homes

Association and the Medical Association in this and I understand they propose to

revise their forms because as my learned friend from St. John's East says:

hospitals and doctors and health care professionals of every ilk are very much

aware of these things. I mean there are lawsuits flicking around of negligence

and lack of consent and what have you, so people are paying attention to these

and my understanding is that if this becomes law as I think it will given the

consensus of the House, then forms will be developed. I suspect the consent form

in the hospital will be amended to say: Do you have a directive? If so, where is

that kind of information and also, there will be, as my friend from Waterford -

Kenmount requested, there will be a public information campaign.

I don't think we plan a large publicity or advertising

campaign; this is the sort of thing one would address with in-service education

and as he knows, the professional people in these fields are the nurses, the

doctors the people who work in the hospitals, there is a constant in-service

process for these people and I am told that this will be built in. We are not

planning to spend any amount of government money or any amount of public funds

to do an advertising campaign because we don't think it is necessary. Again,

with that said, Mr. Speaker, I thank members for their support and I request the

bill be now read a second time.

On motion, a Bill, "An Act Respecting Advance Health Care

Directives And The Appointment Of Substitute Health Care Decision Makers", read

a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. member, I would

like to take this opportunity on behalf of all the members to welcome to the

public galleries, twenty-four students from Holy Redeemer School in Spaniard's

Bay and they are accompanied by their teachers Mr. John Drover and Mr. Nath

Crane.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Your Honour, could we please go on to deal with the adjourned

debate on the Budget? It is Motion No. 1 and I understand from the gentleman

from Kilbride that the gentleman from Bonavista South has concluded his remarks

so I assume the gentleman from Kilbride will speak next, if so, then as you call

it, we will see who rises and catches Your Honour's eye.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion, No. 1.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to stand up and respond and participate in

the Budget debate, the Budget that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

released and tabled and put forward in the House and heralded it as a great

Budget, a balanced Budget, and one of the hallmarks of the Budget is that it

would set this Province into a direction that would create employment, but never

let it be said, Mr. Speaker, that this government has not created employment

because they have. They have created for many people in many areas but the

problem is this, that they have been very, very selective about those for whom

they have created employment.

It certainly has not been for the greater number of people

who are about to lose their jobs at the Newfoundland Dockyard, the 500 to 600

people, it hasn't been for them. It certainly hasn't been for those people

involved in the fishery, the lack of research dollars put into the fishery in

terms of future aquaculture spending, improving infrastructure within the

aquaculture industry, it hasn't been for those sectors or the sectors of our

society that deals with that, and I could go on and on which I probably will at

length in a few more minutes but, for whom have they created employment is the

question? That is the question.

Since the last election - we don't have to look too far, let

us have a look at the former Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Bill

Hogan, let us look at the employment created for that former minister; a Liberal

minister, a $75,000 job in the Department of Employment and Labour to do a

study. More recently he has been a benefactor of a fairly lucrative contract

from the Cabot celebration. Now let us look at some of the other people for whom

they have created employment. Gordon Seabright, who was unceremoniously dumped

from the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal and who replaced him, Mr.

Speaker? Who replaced Gordon Seabright? Another defeated Liberal Cabinet

minister, Eric Gullage.

Now, what is really peculiar about that situation that has

developed is that, finally it created employment, they have been very selective,

very selective but, Mr. Gullage gets appointed as the Chief Review Commissioner

of the Workers' Compensation Commission. Immediately upon his appointment, not

double-dipping, triple-dipping, even in some cases quadruple-dipping begins; I

mean, it is laughable; $500 per case is what was supposed to be paid in that

particular instance but postponements, $500 for a postponement. In fact, Mr

Speaker, in seven to eight short months Mr. Gullage has made about $81,000. Not

a bad short-term employment contract. Many Newfoundlanders would like to have

that.

Who else have they created employment for? This essentially

is a government that has made many rich people much richer. If we look at the

amount of legal fees paid to Chalker Green & Rowe, if we look at the Trans City

contract: blatant patronage, making millionaires millionaires many times over.

Members in this House, particularly those on that side, can stand up and say

that they are proud of their record of achievement. That they have guarded the

books, that they've done such a marvellous job for the people of this Province.

We will see what the next election will bring.

The reality is that this government is spending money in ways

that it should not be spending it in. It is not what they doing so much that is

getting this government in trouble on one hand, but it is what they are not

doing in terms of looking ahead and looking at industries in a much more -

potential industries that could be created, that need some investment, that need

investment in capital, that need investment in people. This is where this

government is lacking.

Let's take one example, the Newfoundland Dockyard. An

operation that has existed in this Province for over one century. Initially the

mandate of the Dockyard was it was a service centre for the marine fleet that

operated on the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador up until the 1970s. That was

its mandate. It was a Crown corporation that was never meant to participate, at

that time, and go after the private sector business that was available to many

shipyards, because it had an adequate supply of business that was incoming all

the time, month by month, and it employed many Newfoundlanders.

Around the mid-1970s things began to change. The coastal

fleet began to disappear, automation, modernization, technological advancement,

began to take over, and the Dockyard at that time began to slip further behind.

We entered the 1980s. When there was a problem with the Dockyard it was

restructured. The federal government did not want to put an investment into the

Newfoundland Dockyard but the provincial government came to its aid with an $8

million to $10 million investment in terms of a synchro-lift. At that time, my

understanding is, that synchro-lift was put in place to go after work on Russian

trawlers. Russian factory-freezer trawlers and others could be brought into the

port, could be lifted out of the water, and the work could be done, thus

employing many Newfoundlanders and thus creating new money coming into the

economy. Not old money circulating round and round, but new dollars which create

new jobs which provide new opportunities. That was the incentive at the time.

Two things didn't happen then, two things didn't happen at

the Newfoundland Dockyard at that point. One, the port where ships would come in

for the synchro-lift was not wide enough and it was not long enough. In fact,

only about 60 per cent of its capacity really could be used. The PC government

of the day should have invested more. The Newfoundland Dockyard has probably,

for a shipyard, the most strategic location in the northwest Atlantic.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what I'm leading to. There is no

doubt about it. At that time that was a problem. It was an investment, because

the federal government would not come to it's aid, the Cabinet of the day, the

government of the day, saw fit to put its own money up front to reinvest in the

Dockyard, but it didn't go far enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, neither government went far enough. No

question about it, I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. What

happened then? Once the synchro-lift went in there the Dockyard's mandate

changed. Because this is essentially the real issue for the Newfoundland

Dockyard and it is an issue that this government I know is facing now. How it

will face it, how it will respond to it, how it will help either solve a problem

or create another one, is yet to be determined, but you enter into the mid to

late 1980s.

Year after year for the past eight years the Dockyard has

gone through subsequent managers, each coming in with a mandate of their own in

terms of positioning the Newfoundland Dockyard for business that could go

elsewhere, to search for work, to bid on work, to produce quality work, to gain

a reputation nationally and internationally.

When the recent manager was appointed by the Board of

Directors of Marine Atlantic, he came with an understanding that with him would

come at least a $12 million cheque from the Federal Government, whether that be

through ACOA or other sources, that would see new investment, new equipment,

that would position the Dockyard to bid on future international work and

national work.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it is not enough. It was not enough,

but it was a beginning. I would estimate that what the Dockyard needs right now

is probably $24 million to $26 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: $30 million.

MR. E. BYRNE: $30 million? I guess we should explain,

even for the record, why it needs that.

In a shipyard museum in Scotland there is equipment over

there that the Dockyard is still using, some of it 80, 90 or 100 years old; it

is incredible. There is a conveyor belt system down there that the Dockyard

employees created for themselves, made for themselves, what they call a pamper.

AN HON. MEMBER: A pamper.

MR. E. BYRNE: They call it a pamper. That is the nickname

on it. They actually welded it. I saw it. I was down and had a look at it. It is

about twenty-four to twenty-five feet long, about six feet wide. It is connected

for under the conveyor belt. The reason it is there is because the system that

is being used leaks that much oil that it requires a pamper. The oil that is

caught in the pan is recycled back into it. It is incredible what they are

working with. But let's look at the quality of work that has gone on there. The

quality of work has been high recently, because the workforce is well educated,

it is well trained, and it has a commitment to high standards of which they have

performed greatly.

Recently, the Dockyard employees built a ship, a seiner, I

believe, the first ship that the Newfoundland Dockyard employees have built in

twenty-five years. It was over budget, as most shipyards when first building

ships are over budget, as happened in Nova Scotia when they got the frigate

contract. The first frigate that they built was almost $1 billion over budget,

but on the subsequent ones that they built, because they gained the technology,

because they gained the skills, because the investment was made in the employees

and in the area, they made money on each subsequent ship. That is the reality.

The minister may say, `Maybe this, maybe that', but they did make money.

Right now, for example, that is what is needed at the

Newfoundland Dockyard, a major, major recapitalization. It is strategically

located in the world, but what has happened? Last year the Dockyard was on a

short list, I believe, on a major contract for the Government of Peru. What

happened with that contract? Why did Marine Atlantic stop the Newfoundland

Dockyard from bidding on that contract? Here are the questions that must be

asked, that surround that issue. Was it because they were not qualified? No,

that wasn't it because, as I said before, the employees at the Newfoundland

Dockyard are among the highest trained and skilled workforce in that area, in

Atlantic Canada, if not nationally; so it wasn't because they weren't trained.

Was it because they could not do the job with the equipment

they had down there? Albeit it would have been a challenging job for the

employees with the equipment, but they could have done it. So the question

remains, why was it pulled? Why did Marine Atlantic scuttle the contract, the

bidding that went on for that major contract, that would have seen 300 to 400

people employed for a period of seven to ten years, eight months of the year

each year for that period. What happened? The questions were asked in this House

because I asked them this time last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you get an answer?

MR. E. BYRNE: No answers forthcoming, again dealing with

the loss of contract and why Newfoundland Dockyard could not bid on

international work. The answers that came from the government here were similar

to the answers I got yesterday: We are concerned about it, but it is really a

Federal Government responsibility.

MR. FUREY: Surely, you agree with that, don't you?

MR. E. BYRNE: Surely, I would agree technically.

MR. FUREY: Well, surely you agree (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: If the minister would give me chance. What

I do agree with is that it is a Federal Government Crown corporation, but what I

do not and cannot accept is this government's lack of responsibility to stand up

and fight for those Newfoundlanders, because you have not done it, Sir. No one

in this government has done it, not for the Newfoundland Dockyard.

Why, Mr. Speaker, did Marine Atlantic not let the

Newfoundland Dockyard bid on international work? This is where we are getting

to, this is the real issue. In a recent interview the president of Marine

Atlantic who is a hatchet man, period - do you know what his background is? He

was a deputy minister of northern development and he was the president of B.C.

Ferry Services, and now he is the president of Marine Atlantic. He boasts

publicly that his claim to fame is that he has worked on every frontier in

Canada. Now, what that has to do with building ships, what that has to do with

going after major international work or national work or Atlantic work, is

beyond me. Because it does not have anything to do with it.

The reality is this, that Marine Atlantic has a mandate, a

private agenda, to scuttle the Dockyard. That is the bottom line here. No matter

what is said by any minister in this House, no matter what is said by any

politician federally or municipally, it will not convince me otherwise. What is

happening is this: Marine Atlantic will not let the Newfoundland Dockyard bid on

work nationally. In print, the president of Marine Atlantic said this, and I

quote: They cannot bid on any work in Quebec, we will not let them bid on any

work in Ontario. The only thing we will let the Dockyard bid on is work in

Atlantic Canada.

Mr. Speaker, surely, if I owned a company or if you owned a

company, or if any member of this House owned a company that wanted to compete

in the private sector, and you set up walls and limitations on that company that

they could only operate within a small geographic area, what are you doing to

yourself? You are putting yourself out of business, that is what you are doing.

If you are really trying to privatize the Newfoundland Dockyard, or if you are

really trying to give your own people a chance, if you are really trying to give

the employees and their families the opportunity to survive, make a living, send

children to school and work and live in a community, you would not do that. You

would not begin to do that. You would not even conceive to do that. The only

reason that is being done, again, is to close the Newfoundland Dockyard and, in

effect, shut down the livelihoods of some 600 to 800 people in this Province on

one coast.

It is fine for me as a member of this House to stand up and

be critical; it is my job, on one hand. But I also have the responsibility to

propose some solutions, which I intend to do now. What needs to happen with the

Dockyard is simply this. It needs a major infusion of capital investment.

MR. FUREY: We all know the solution, it is very simple.

MR. E. BYRNE: If it is very simple, I say to the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology, why haven't you got up off your backside to

do it? Why have you been sitting down since 1989 and done nothing about it, if

it is that simple? Seriously. If it is very simple, why haven't you done it

since 1989? Let me ask you that.

MR. FUREY: You are just playing politics, that's all.

MR. E. BYRNE: My god!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: My oh my! What an incredible statement!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what is required for the

Newfoundland Dockyard is a major capital investment. There has to be legitimate

and real reasons to go after it. If the government, federally or provincially or

by some cost-shared arrangement, sets itself to bail out the Dockyard, to put it

in a position where it can compete nationally, internationally, there has to be

some legitimate reasons for it.

There are. One: the Newfoundland Dockyard is probably the

most strategically located dockyard, ship-building facility, repair facility,

fabrication yard, in the northwest Atlantic. Each year passing in front of our

doorsteps, some twenty to thirty miles just outside the narrows of St. John's,

33,000 to 35,000 vessels pass by there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Per year?

MR. E. BYRNE: Per year. The next position, Mr. Speaker,

the next place where those ships could stop for any repair, to re-service

themselves, to pick up supplies is 2,000 nautical miles away. It is incredible.

That is a legitimate reason.

The other reason is that beyond its strategic location the

Newfoundland Dockyard and its employees, as I said before, are amongst the most

highly trained and skilled workforce in Canada, in shipbuilding repair. Now,

what is the other reason? What are some other good reasons that we should do it,

besides all the social reasons in terms of providing employment? Last year for

example the dockyard I believe - the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

may correct me - had a payroll of $25 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: $26.4 million was it? $26.4 million, that

was their payroll. What did that do to the local economy in this Province?

Incredible. Last year the dockyard, in terms of supply and services of places it

contracted with - it purchased 40,000 tanks of oxygen from Canadian Liquid Air.

If the dockyard closes down today, sixteen employees are laid off at Canadian

Liquid Air. Mark it down because it will happen and it will happen immediately,

effective like that, beyond the spin-off. Beyond the social reasons, what are

some of the business reasons that we should do it? One, a major investment in

the Newfoundland Dockyard will produce significant profits. Two, we have

excellent - with proper marketing, skilled marketing because the marketing

department that has been down there has not been doing their job because they

have been handcuffed by Marine Atlantic. It is not because they do not have the

ability to do it, it is not because they do not have the willingness to do it,

it is not because they do not have the expertise to do it, it is because they do

not have the support of their parent company, that is the problem.

Mr. Morrison, in a radio interview, was asked: Is there a

likely possibly that the Newfoundland Dockyard will close down and be

dismantled? His answer: Yes there is. Then in the same breath, in the next

question, he said: But, we are bidding on some work for Hibernia now. We have a

staff of sixty or so managers there. There is only one trades person on, so we

are hopeful we will get it. Now when you are dealing with a major, major private

sector company like those companies that are involved in the Hibernia Project

and on the one hand the president of the company is saying that there is a

likely possibility the Newfoundland Dockyard will shut down, how in the name of

God do you expect to win bids and contracts? What message does it send out to

the private sector? What message does it send out to the business community?

Simply this: Don't do any work with us, we might not be around next week, we

might not be around next month. That is what it is saying.

Now there are all sorts of figures, Mr. Speaker, that have

been bandied about, talked about, spun out by some very irresponsible people in

terms of what the dockyard has really lost. What has the dockyard lost last year

for example? Some people say it lost $3 million, other people say it lost $1.5

million. The reality is that no one really knows. Morrison knows, Marine

Atlantic knows I suppose but it is not information they are releasing to the

public. It is not information they are releasing to the trades council. It is

not information that they are willing to release because I don't believe they

lost that much.

Well lets get back to what the Province can do. What did the

Newfoundland Dockyard pay in payroll tax last year? $1.2 million in payroll tax.

Could not the Newfoundland Dockyard, if the government brought in its EDGE

legislation, be considered a company that could take advantage of the EDGE

legislation? Is that a possibility? Why can't companies now existing, for the

maintenance of 500 to 600 jobs, be incorporated into EDGE legislation that would

give them an edge in the marketplace, that would give the employees of the

Newfoundland Dockyard and their families an edge, a sign of hope maybe? That may

be one thing that we can start. That may be one direction, one pillar that we

can put up under the falling ceiling there in the Newfoundland Dockyard that can

help keep it up and keep it alive.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology made a few

comments before he left, that I was demeaning myself somehow in playing politics

with an issue. I don't want to play politics with this issue. Every MHA in this

Legislature, especially every MHA in the St. John's and surrounding area who all

have constituents and families working at the Newfoundland Dockyard, should put

partisan politics aside on this issue and should go cheek to cheek and arm to

arm and slug it out with the federal government to maintain those jobs. That is

what needs to happen.

Now the minister said also that it is a simple solution that

was required - simple, $24 million to $26 million. If it was that simple why

couldn't, over the last six or seven years, there be a plan put in place to

reinvest and recapitalize that dockyard? Why did we let it go to the state that

it is today? Why did it happen? Things just don't happen like that. What is

happening to the dockyard is exactly what is happening to the railway. There was

a private agenda to scuttle it, to dismantle it, to get it off the backs of the

federal government, but we should not let that happen. Whatever we can do within

our power, within our influence, with who we know, with what we have to do, all

the legislators here, but people in this surrounding area as well, every

employee, we all have a responsibility at this time to come together on this

issue. It is too important. Are we that flushed with jobs and employment in this

Province that we can let 500 to 600 jobs just disappear? Are we that advantaged?

I think not, Mr. Speaker. We talk about new opportunities in the global

marketplace. The St. John's Dockyard is strategically located to take advantage

of those new opportunities. It deserves investment. It deserves a chance.

Now, what about the private sector initiatives that have been

going on? Who is interested in purchasing the dockyard? They have tried to

privatize it on four or five occasions. I understand that there are a number of

bids before it now. If the Newfoundland Dockyard can be privatized, sobeit, as

long as it maintains jobs, it goes after international work, as long as it can

compete - fair enough - but you are not going to privatize a dockyard by

dismantling it and shutting it down. It is not enough to do that, and this is

where the Province does have some leverage. This is where they do, because the

Province has an $8 million to $10 million direct cash investment through the

synchrolift. What about the Province's share if Marine Atlantic closes it down?

Does the Province reap back the money they invested into the Newfoundland

Dockyard, plus interest? We will see, but the Province does have some leverage,

and do not let anyone think otherwise, because we do, and we have a

responsibility to go after it.

Mr. Speaker, over the next week or so I hope to be asking

questions to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations on this issue, and

I know that he, as one St. John's MHA over the past six or seven years, and as a

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, has fought for the Newfoundland

Dockyard, and we disagree on many issues, but I know I cannot stand in my place

today and say that he has not, because he has a number of constituents who work

there. It is in his district, and I know that it is very important to him, but I

want to say to him, as the minister, do not let the federal government dictate

what will happen in this instance. If you do not, you can count on this member's

support to ensure that those 500 or 600 jobs stay down there, and more, because

the possibilities are that there could be more if the dockyard was let to have

work.

Mr. Speaker, what about the federal government and the

hypocritical response to the Newfoundland Dockyard? What have they done in

Canada for other dockyards, for other shipbuilding facilities? In the Province

of Quebec they gave a $363 million project to the shipyard MIL-Davie - $363

million. If the dockyard could have 5 per cent of that it would keep another 500

or 600 people alive, working today for another eight months. $363 million, let

that not be lost, the impact that has had in the Province of Quebec. Let not the

federal government stand up and say on one cheek that we are trying to get rid

of Crown corporations and out of the shipbuilding repair, while at the same

time, for other provinces, they are getting $363 million. That is just one

example. What about Dartmouth shipbuilding yard? What was the size of the

contracts for the frigates there, I say to the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: $30 million or $40 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: $40 million to $46 million federal

government work given to the shipbuilding in Halifax.

What about international work? What work is happening

internationally? Morrison, the President of Marine Atlantic, said there is

nothing happening internationally, the reality is that there is really not much

going on, trying to create the perception that there is no work for the

dockyard, no work for shipyards anywhere in the world - blatant, blatant,

misleading statements made by him.

In the European Union today there is $18 billion worth of

work going on, with next year anticipated another $20 billion to $22 billion

more work that needs to be done for the European Community alone. We are not

even looking at the needs in the Pacific Rim; we are not looking at the needs in

the Baltic States. This is just the ten member countries that make up the

European Union.

There is $18 billion worth of work going on right now and

next year $20 to $22 billion worth of work needs to be done in ship building,

ship repair fabrication.

Why can we not bid on it? Why can we not bid on that? Why can

the Newfoundland Shipyard not bid on that? We are not allowed at this point

because it is not part of their agenda. It is not part of Marine Atlantic's

agenda. This, Mr. Speaker, is just one example of what this federal government

has been able to do in this Province since it has become elected with very

little opposition.

MR. EFFORD: Why can it not be privatized?

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister must have been out of the

House when I said that if it can be privatized let us privatize it, as long as

it will stay open and as long as it can bid on international work. Right now the

dockyard could be doing that. It could be creating a profit that would make it

more lucrative and attractive to private investors, but that is not happening,

because Marine Atlantic will not let it happen.

Over the past two years if the dockyard was allowed to bid

internationally, because it has the expertise and the marketing individuals down

there to do it, if it had been allowed to do that, if it had gotten some

international work which it was in a position to do, we may be able to sell the

dockyard today at a greater profit but we can't. If you were to invest your own

money in a facility that was going to be dismantled would you really invest your

own money? But if you were going to invest your money in a company that was

vibrant, that was going after international work, that was bidding, that was

getting it and had a future, maybe it would seem a more sound investment. I am

not against privatization here, but what I am against is a private agenda that

scuttled families from work and a facility that can work if it were given a

chance to work.

With that, I think my time is up.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few comments in conjunction with what the hon. member

has said about the Newfoundland Dockyard. As he said sometimes we disagree and,

I suppose, rightfully so if the opinions are different, but I would concur that

most, if not all, of what the hon. member had to say this morning is correct.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: About the dockyard?

MR. MURPHY: Yes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not what he said before that.

MR. MURPHY: No. About the dockyard. Let that be clear.

Just to make some more comment about the Newfoundland

Dockyard. It is, I suppose, nothing less than discouraging when you see what I

feel is an negative agenda. It has been in place a long time I say to the

member, and as the members knows and readily admits, I have been involved with

the dockyard since 1989. I spent quite an amount of time dealing with the then

Minister Crosbie and his principals. The member is totally right about the

subsidy level that went into Sorel, MIL Davie, what has happened in the St. John

yard, what has happened in the Halifax-Dartmouth yard, and what has not happened

in the Newfoundland dockyard.

Just by example a couple of weeks ago there was a fabrication

tender that came out from the Hibernia project which the Newfoundland Dockyard

bid on, FOB yard, which obviously gave the Newfoundland Dockyard a better chance

to get the contract because of our proximity with Hibernia. Two weeks later the

tender was amended FOB Hibernia which basically took the yard out of that

particular tender as such, but we still may get it.

These are the kind of things that are very disturbing. Not

aggressive is what Marine Atlantic has been saying to the management people at

the yard for some three years now. Do not be aggressive. Do not bid on

international work. As the member knows, and all members know, when you have a

yard with the capability of building a floating batch plant to pour all the

cement on the Hibernia GBS - that job was done at the Newfoundland Dockyard,

this time 820 employees with good quality, high-paying jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Under budget?

MR. MURPHY: Well, I say to the member, somebody may - you

know the bean counters, I know the bean counters, you can make something look a

little -

AN HON. MEMBER: How did it work out (inaudible) period of

time (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Let me tell the member that the job - the

information that came back to me personally was that the quality of that batch

plant work was beyond expectations; it was delivered before the requirement time

and that batch plant was responsible for pouring all the slip form work at the

GBS. So the member is right, we do have a quality workforce. I never wanted to

make an issue of the archaic equipment that those employees were working with

because some of it should be in the Smithsonian Institute. It was a credit to

the quality of the workers at the yard, to be able to perform, to be able to bid

and to be able to do work with that kind of equipment in comparison to the yard

in Quebec, in St. John, in Halifax and in Dartmouth.

Now, most yards today, I say to the member, are subsidized.

For whatever reason governments have let the shipbuilding industry and/or refit

and/or repair fall into that category, I have no idea; but I say to the member

and I say to the members of the House that I did have discussion yesterday, when

I was in Toronto, with Minister Young whom Marine Atlantic reports back to, and

he assured me that during the negotiations that Marine Atlantic will be

conducting - and their agenda: without question, I say to the member, and we all

should know and understand it, Marine Atlantic's agenda is to privatize and/or

sell the yard.

Now, I agree with the member. If we privatize the yard and

the yard is competitive and it gets out there and is bidding international work,

the yard is identified in the trade magazines associated with -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: None of that, no, the member is entirely

right. The whole thing takes on the same smell as the railway. You take a

situation, you downgrade it to a point that it is totally unattractive to

anybody and then they say: Well, it can't make any money so we have no

alternative. So I say to the member that we will be meeting, and I say `we', the

Premier, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and myself on Monday

morning with the workers representatives. Mr. Young guaranteed me yesterday,

that Mr. Morrison, who is the CEO of Marine Atlantic, will be available to the

Premier's Office any time during these negotiations to continue to bring this

government up-to-date on what is going on. Because the member again is right,

that the people of this Province have $8 million in the yard in the synchrolift

and at the end of the day, I think, it would be a total and utter shame that

that whole property may provide twenty-five or thirty jobs in a marshalling-yard

situation and/or a lay down as we know it for pipe casings etcetera and a few

forklift operators and a few what have you.

The yard has the capability, as we know - as a matter of fact

in the history of the yard, last summer there were more people working at the

yard than ever in the history of the yard, 820-some employees. I say to the

Federal Government, if they want to play games or if Marine Atlantic wants to

play games with whether or not that job made money, all you do is look at the

payroll, look at the income tax from that payroll, look at the GST from that

payroll and you could never say, you could never justify, not in your wildest

dreams that the yard lost money on that job.

So, I assure the member that this government is doing

everything it can, I am doing everything I can, as I have over the last six

years in dealing with Mr. Crosbie and others, to try to keep that yard because

we all should realize this and we have seen it too often lately, that once that

chain and that lock go shut, it is very, very difficult to unlock it for

whatever the reason. So we have to keep in our minds and we have to strive to do

everything we possibly can to keep the Newfoundland Dockyard doing what it has

done for seventy-five years and that is the repair and the refit of the marine

business that, as the member said is all around us, but when management at the

dockyard are told from Moncton or from Ottawa: No, no, don't be aggressive, only

bid on local work' - where is the local work? Our groundfish resource is gone.

If the trawlers from FPI and Nat Sea were available - that work is gone.

So the two ferries that were built in Quebec just happened to

be twenty-two feet too long for the dry dock, just happened to be. So we can't

bring them in and put them on dry dock. Their own ferries, Marine Atlantic's own

vessels, where you would think that they would be able to do their own vessels,

certainly would have saved them and would give the business to themselves but

they don't have that ability or capability. However in saying those things, I

can assure the member that we will be prudent, we will do our best to remind the

principals that are negotiating this deal, that this government supports the

continuation of the Newfoundland Dockyard as we knew it. If it goes private,

then I am sure the member understands, that is a situation we have no control

over. We will not turn our heads away from the $8 million that the yard owes the

people of this Province and the accumulated interest but we would never draw

that in if we knew the jobs were going to be available at the yard. We would not

call that in.

So I say to the member that I am sure he will hear and I am

sure he will be asking questions about the progress between now - and I want the

member to know and understand, that Marine Atlantic, and, my understanding is,

one serious bid and another bid that may be not so serious, let me say, we will

be watching that, watching it very closely, and we will be doing everything we

possibly can to ensure that those people who have had an opportunity - and the

member knows, the Member for Ferryland at that peak last year had about 120 of

his constituents working at the yard. The Member for St. John's East Extern had

people working at the yard. The Member for Kilbride had people at the yard. The

Member for Waterford - Kenmount had people there. It isn't just a yard that - my

colleagues in Carbonear, Harbour Grace, all over the Northeast Avalon, it

provides jobs for people. So let me say to the member, he can be assured that we

will do everything possible, I will do everything possible to make -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Bowing down to the federal minister.

MR. MURPHY: Now the member could probably give me a

lecture on bowing down to federal ministers. I remember - now I am glad the

Member for Grand Bank said that because there was nobody - when I talked about

conservation officers way back five or six years ago with the member, he said,

`Well, I can't embarrass John.' So now the member is the last one I want to hear

a lecture from on kowtowing or bowing down to federal ministers.

MR. J. BYRNE: You were.

MR. MURPHY: Well, now, the Member for St. John's East

Extern, of course, knows full that that is not the case; I never did, never

will, and don't intend to now, I say to the Member for Grand Bank. If he had

been prudent, on top of it, and listened to this member -if we went to the steps

as I suggested, all fifty-two strong of us, some five or six years ago, we might

be better off today, I say to the Member for Grand Bank. I talked about

conservation offers and what have you, and he knew I had a good point but he

didn't want to offend John. He was afraid of offending John. He said: Well, you

know, Crosbie is a good man and he is looking after us and so forth and so on.

He always had a little bit - no, he always -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Let me say to the Member for Ferryland, I

also had an opportunity to have a meeting with Minister Axworthy. The two-tier

system that was of very great concern for all of us here in Newfoundland, re:

the permanent worker, re: the seasonal worker. That is something that was very -

and the Minister of Education was on that social committee. That was of very

great concern for us. I say to the Member for Ferryland, that is no longer a

consideration of the Federal Government. There is no two-tier system in UI, it

is gone. And this government, this minister and the Minister of Social Services

played a large role in convincing Minister Axworthy - a large role.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, he brought it in.

MR. MURPHY: No, I say to the member, that is incorrect

and if he hadn't got on with that stuff he may have done a little better a

couple weekends ago. It is incorrect. But let me go back to my colleague, the

Member for Kilbride and tell him, yes, we will be prudent, we will do our best

on the dockyard situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Ferryland

wants to carry on a private conversation, perhaps behind the Chair or outside is

an appropriate place to do it.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) defend myself.

MR. MURPHY: No, I say to the Member for Ferryland, to be

quite candid with him, I always have been impressed with his diligence, his hard

work. I have a little bit of a problem with his math at times, over another

issue which is long gone, but I wonder - and over the last few days, I have

heard the members talk about how you can't keep the government caucus quiet -

they are all eating one another over there.

Now, let me make a quick comment. I will make a prediction

today that when caucus solidarity - and I don't know how it is; it is a good

show over there now, and I see the Member for Burin - Placentia West clapping,

but I can see it over there; it is not as strong, I say to the member, as they

want us to believe. It is starting to crack. It is like the Liberty Bell; it is

starting to crack, and you can see it. It is very easy to recognize. It is

starting to come apart.

Today, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount was sitting on the

edge of his seat with a question for the minister, shaking, trying to get up,

and what happened? The Leader of the Opposition drew so much time - well, the

member knew, so the Member for St. John's East, the last question, addresses the

question.

AN HON. MEMBER: A burning issue.

MR. MURPHY: A burning issue. So we can see what is going

over here. We are watching. We are looking, and we are sensing that there is

starting to be fragmentation in the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dream on.

MR. MURPHY: I don't think the hand-raising at the end of

the decision of the delegates is as strong now as it was then, I say to the

member. We will see. Time will tell how well our friends opposite get along, and

what happens after the House closes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Solidarity.

MR. MURPHY: Solidarity, oh, yes. I say to the Member for

- I don't know how he spells solidarity. He may want to spell it -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, I thank the House Leader. He is an

excellent speller, a marvellous House Leader and a super speller.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he say?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: All in all, the Member for Ferryland - and I

never had a chance since, I never saw him - I wanted to offer both him and the

Member for Grand Bank sincere congratulations. I think the Member for Grand Bank

did an excellent -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, don't get into that. I forget the `i'.

Where does the `i' go?

Anyway, I want to congratulate the Member for Grand Bank. I

think you did a wonderful job, as I saw it, and, of course, the Member for

Ferryland who is, as everybody knows, my member where I live.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Oh, yes, I say the member does know, because

the member also knows how much I have done for some of his constituents over the

last few years.

MR. SULLIVAN: You have a nice cabin up there, I must say.

MR. MURPHY: Well, the member may want to call it a cabin

because he has a much better home, I would suggest.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: It depends on your resources, and one of the

platforms in the member's campaign was that he was a businessman, and he

stressed that, and I believe it, so he is much more fortunate. I was never a

businessman. I only could accumulate the few dollars that somebody gave me every

second Friday, so the member was very fortunate, and what he calls a home to

him, and what I have he may call a cabin, but to me it i