December

7, 1993

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 30

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: On Monday of last week, I think it was, I

asked the Premier a series of questions about job losses that could result from

the merger of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro with Newfoundland Power. The

Premier said, the President of Hydro estimates the number would be at most 150,

and when on then to say it might be 130, or whatever, it might be 160, or it may

be 170, and these are at Hydro I presume because the next day in a bulletin to

the employees David Mercer the President and CEO of Hydro said that that

estimate - this was in response to the Premier's statement the day before, that

estimate was not derived from detailed discussions with Newfoundland Power.

According to Mr. Mercer the number of 150 was a preliminary estimate. I would

like to ask the minister how may job losses are estimated to occur at

Newfoundland Power, if a merge occurs, and how many spin-off job losses would

occur indirectly in our economy as a result of these direct losses that the

Premier has already admitted to now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member said the number that was given by the

Premier last week, and by Mr. Mercer to the Premier was an estimate of the total

between the two corporations, not at Hydro or at Power but between the two

corporations in total. The total between the two corporations is 150, not

assigned to either one because at this time we have not had the detailed

assessment to see how it would break down between the two corporations. As part

of the estimate it was estimated approximately what proportion would be in the

union ranks and what proportion would be otherwise, but that is irrelevant. I

have not done any calculations and I do not think anyone has done a calculation

as to what the spin-off numbers might be. I think personally they will be quite

minimal.

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

MR. SIMMS: I think we heard that somewhere before, Mr.

Speaker, when they privatized Nova Scotia power. The government up there said

there would not be any job losses and a couple of months ago they laid off 400.

What has happened here today is that the minister has now admitted in a public

forum that the government has absolutely no idea how many jobs are going to be

lost through this Hydro deal, so I want to ask him this question, why in the

world would the government proceed with such significant talks as merger talks

without first having had done some kind of a competent study of the impact of

employment at Hydro and Newfoundland Power, as well as the impact of job losses

indirectly in our economy, because that would have an affect on our provincial

economy? Should not the people of the Province expect their government to have

such basic information available to give to them when they ask these questions?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, this decision is not being

driven by the number of redundancies that might occur between the two

corporations. It is being driven by other reasons.

There would obviously, as part of the merger, be some

efficiencies by bringing the two companies together, and part of that would be

the redundancies that occur by bringing two companies together; but we said from

the beginning, as the Premier announced last week, that the approximate number

is about 150, plus or minus a few. We do not have exact numbers until we get

into detailed discussions between the two corporations as to what the exact

numbers might be.

At this time we are discussing the possibility of a merger,

and we have not yet reached a final decision on that, and if there is no merger,

there will be no privatization in a merged way.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On a supplementary, since the minister just said we are

discussing merger talks, I would like him to clarify something for the House,

and probably for the public.

The Premier told the press, in an interview outside the

House, I think about a week ago, that there had been no talks with Fortis for

several days. Now that is about ten days ago, so I would like to ask the

minister: Have these talks then resumed? Is that what he is suggesting, that

these talks have resumed; and if they have not resumed, perhaps he could tell us

the date of the last meeting. So one or the other - have they resumed? If not,

tell us the date the last meeting might have been.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the talks never ever broke off,

and talks are never continuous. What the Premier said was that there had not

been a meeting for a few days, which was correct. There had not been a meeting

for a few days, because they do not meet every day, but the most recent meetings

were this weekend. On Saturday there were meetings, and on Sunday there were

meetings, and when there is a need to have more meetings there will be more

meetings, but we have not reached a conclusion yet as a result of any of the

meetings.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister does not

know what is going on; he is not involved in it. The Premier certainly gave the

impression, outside this House, that there may have been an impasse. That is

what all the news stories talked about, and all the rest of it, so now the off

again, on again, off again talks are on again. So the minister has now confirmed

- for those out there who might have thought that this was somehow going to be

put aside and so on, they can forget that.

I want to ask the minister: Considering the fact that the

government seems to be rushing ahead, and moving ahead, on this issue without

knowing the facts, without considering the consequences, without being able to

provide the answers to the public, I want to ask him: Will the government at

least give consideration to formally suspending these talks with Fortis until

you are able to get some credible answers to all the questions that the people

of this Province have been asking for the last two months? Will he consider that

and make that representation to his colleagues?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we are not rushing ahead at

anything. As a matter of fact, we are taking all the time that is necessary to

try to work out a merger. If we do work out a merger, then we will move into the

next phase which means getting into all these details, but right now we are

still having discussions related to a merger and because that is the recommended

way to go with a privatization, the preferred way to go.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries.

In the last week or so, the federal Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans has made a couple of alarming statements. First of all he said that any

additional fishermen and fish plant workers who were going to be out of the

industry because of the recent closures recommended by the FRCC, that their

benefits would have to come from the existing pool, which means that everyone

would get less. Within the last twenty-four hours, the minister has very

strongly indicated that the old question now of compensation for fish plant

workers and fishermen, is certainly in jeopardy. I am wondering, has the

minister or his officials been in touch with the federal minister within the

last twenty-four hours, to determine exactly what this means for the 30,000 or

so Newfoundlanders who are dependent now upon the NCARP benefits and the TFAA

Program on the South and Southwest Coast. Could the minister inform the House if

he has had any discussions with the minister and what the implications are for

the Province?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, no, I have not talked to the

minister in the past few days but I can only repeat what I told the hon.

gentleman in the House just a few days ago that, during my meeting with the

minister, two weeks ago tomorrow I believe, two Wednesdays ago, the minister

then expressed the wish that he would be able to harmonize the various

compensation packages to bring them in line with the NCARP package that is now

in place on the Northeast Coast, and I have no reason to believe that the

minister has any other plans but to do that. As to the availability of money, I

know that he is going to have to get additional funding to harmonize the

programs and to provide adequate compensation for those affected by the

moratorium, but certainly I am confident that the minister will find the money

and will be able to make good on that promise.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary for the minister. I am not sure if the

minister - I would not say I don't know if he knows what he is talking about

because that would be unfair, but the minister just said that in his meetings

with the federal minister, they discussed the possibilities of harmonizing the

South and Southwest Coast package to bring that in line with the NCARP package

which really, what the minister has said the federal minister has indicated,

that he would like to improve the South and Southwest Coast program to bring it

up to the NCARP level because everyone knows, those of us who live on the

Southcoast that the Southcoast package is less lucrative than the NCARP package,

so is the minister saying today that the federal minister indicated to him that

he is looking at improving the South and Southwest Coast package to bring it up

to a level that the NCARP benefits recipients are now receiving, is that what he

said?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I am not here today to speak for

the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, he is quite prepared to speak for himself.

I can only inform the House and the hon. gentleman what transpired at a meeting

that I had with the minister two or three weeks ago. I can only tell you that

the minister - I don't think the minister needs the hon. gentleman for Grand

Bank or the provincial Minister of Fisheries to convince him that there is a

need to harmonize the programs, and that, in fact, it is not fair to expect the

people of the South Coast to accept one amount, or the people on the West Coast,

with the people on the Northeast Coast being paid another amount. I think the

minister is well aware of that.

I can't speak for him as to what, precisely, will be done in

the final analysis. I can only say that I sensed a very strong desire on the

part of the new minister to harmonize the programs and to make sure that they

are done in a fair and equitable way.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) up.

MR. MURPHY: You would be up if your buddies didn't

(inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Order, please, big mouth, maw mouth!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we need to convince the federal minister to do now, I

say to the provincial minister, is to continue with the compensation program,

because if ever there was a backing off, we have seen it within the last

twenty-four hours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: My worst fear, Mr. Speaker, is that the

thousands of Newfoundlanders who are out there receiving benefits now are going

to be slashed in May. The worst I thought was that the benefits would be

reduced, but now, listening to the minister in the last twenty-four hours, I

won't be surprised if the benefits are cut totally, eliminated. I ask the

minister: Will he today undertake, on behalf of the thousands of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians who are receiving benefits on either NCARP or the South and

Southwest Coast package, to immediately get in touch with the federal minister

and implore that an adequate compensation program be kept in place after May

15th? Will he do that?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is about -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the hon. minister.

MR. CARTER: The hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is about

three weeks late, because I said those very words to the minister when I met

with him in Ottawa three weeks ago. I don't have to do this. I'm sure the

minister is well aware of the need for a continuation of the compensation

package after May of 1994 and I think he has said that. It might be in a

different form, I don't know, but certainly, the minister doesn't need me, or

the hon. gentleman, to convince him of the need for a compensation package

post-May 1994. I leave it up to the minister and I think he will come through.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Just a couple of

months ago, before October 25th, there was much talk about the great $6 billion

infrastructure program that was supposed to be instituted by the new federal

government to provide jobs for pretty well everybody in Canada. Mr. Speaker,

will the minister now tell the House if he has met with his federal

representative concerning this so-called infrastructure program? Can he inform

the House what process his department will be following to initiate the

particulars of this program, and will the municipalities be contacted

individually or will the minister be going on their five-year plan that has

already been submitted?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of a committee

of Cabinet, headed up by the hon. the Minister of Finance, which includes the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and myself, to have

ready for the Premier - when he visits the Prime Minister along with his other

provincial counterparts - an agreement whereby this Province can set out what we

suggest to be the best possible method to accomplish the aims and objectives of

the infrastructure program.

The reason why there are other ministers on that committee,

basically, is that we feel, along with other provinces in Canada, that the

infrastructure program can also be channelled towards things other than

municipal infrastructure. An example of what we are looking at - and I emphasis

the fact that we are looking at - is a silviculture program which would create a

sizeable amount of employment in this Province. We are also looking at dealing

with the problems that we have in certain areas of the Province as it relates to

aquaculture and sewerage outfall, sewerage waste management. There are a number

of other areas, towns and communities in the Province that want us to look at

the possibility of recreation facilities and my hon. colleague knows that that

list goes on and on and on. We have already met on a number of occasions. My

hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, met last week, when he was in Halifax

at his finance meeting, with Mr. Dingwall, who is responsible for Eastern

Canada, for that particular program. We have had discussions with our

counterparts - I have with mine, for example, in Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and

New Brunswick - and basically, just about every province in Canada are coming at

the federal government with different proposals pertaining to this

infrastructure program. We are working on ours right now. We should have it

ready, hopefully, to give to the Premier on - I think December 21 he is meeting

with the Prime Minister. We should have it ready by that time.

After that time, if the federal government will accept our

recommendations, then I will be able to come back and actually make some

announcement publicly on what direction we are taking, and then decide what

method I will be using in regard to notifying various communities around the

Province.

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

Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the fact that municipalities in the Province can

now just make ends meet, with regard to their capital funding, and in view of

the fact that a large number of municipalities could not even take the

provincial capital funding last year because of their current debt, will the

minister inform the House how many municipalities, if any, in the Province

today, will be able to take advantage of this particular program?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Let me correct a misstatement there. The hon.

member said that there were a large number of communities in the Province that

could not afford to avail of the capital works program last year. As far as I

know, Mr. Speaker, there were eleven who actually wrote the previous minister

back and said that they could not afford it. Now if that is a large number out

of 284, there was not a large number.

The question of what communities can afford and what

communities cannot afford, I really cannot answer that either because it is a

situation whereby the Province, first of all, will have to determine where they

are going to find their one-third. Whether or not the Province will be able to

provide, let us say hypothetically, guaranteed loans to municipalities, I do not

know. I really do not know. I cannot say at this particular point in time

whether the wealthy City of St. John's will be able to come up with their

one-third of the project. It is hypothetical. It is a hypothetical question at

this particular point in time.

I am hoping, and I have said this before publicly, and I say

this to the hon. member, Newfoundland, in the situation that we are in - and I

believe the idea was tossed around on the other side some while ago - with the

high unemployment rate that we have at the present time, and the economic

conditions in the Province, I am hoping - it probably will not happen, but I am

hoping - that maybe some special deal could be arranged for Newfoundland in

regard to that one-third that the Province has to put in, or that one-third that

the municipalities have to put in.

What the Premier has said, and what I have said around this

Province, is that if a municipality is looking to take advantage of that

infrastructure program, I will do, and I am certainly sure this government will

do, everything it possibly can do, within its power, to accommodate that

community.

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

for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister then inform the House, if the Province

does take

part in this infrastructure program, that they will be putting new

money into the program and not use the same amount of funding that was used last

year for capital programs in the Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I cannot make that commitment. I

am sorry. We have not gone through our budgetary process yet. I do not know,

quite honestly, as a minister, what will be in the capital works budget next

year. We have to deal with social services. We have to deal with Health. We have

to deal with education. When the budgetary process begins I will have some idea.

I will probably be in a better position then to be able to at least guess the

amount that will be in the capital works budget next year.

I cannot answer that question because honestly I do not know

what this Province will be able to afford in 1994 for municipal capital works.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the

Minister of Tourism and Culture.

In May of 1991 the federal and provincial governments signed

a $20 million Tourism and Historic Resources Co-operation Agreement to develop

Newfoundland and Labrador's tourism potential. I understand that cuts were made

in February of this year, by both governments, to the tune of $1.18 million. I

have also learned that the federal government has now advised your department

that they are now reducing their share by another $1.5 million.

I would like to ask the minister: Will the provincial

government also be slashing their 30 per cent share in proportion to the latest

federal cut; and when all the cuts have been made, what will be the new bottom

line?

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

First and foremost, let me correct the first statement the

member made. The provincial government did not cut its share of the monies that

were allocated for that subsidiary agreement. The federal government, in actual

fact - the previous federal government, that is - actually cut their numbers.

The plan that they had in place at that time was to reduce

that budget by yet another $1.5 million. That is still under negotiation and at

this point in time no firm decision has been made as to whether or not that $1.5

million will be reduced. I will say to the member that representatives of the

management committee representing the federal government in particular are still

insisting that that amount will be reduced but we have not agreed that it should

be yet, and we are still negotiating. So the second $1.5 million may not be

reduced.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.

Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: My, question, Mr. Minister, concerned the 30

per cent share that the provincial government has in the program. If the planned

cuts are made I would like to ask the minister how his department is planning to

manage now with significantly less money. Will all the projects and programs

initially scheduled for funding receive a proportional cut or will some be

dropped altogether?

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In actual fact our

department is in a precarious situation. We took for granted that the amounts

that were there were going to be left. In actual fact, the department has

virtually expended its share of that $1.2 million that you referred to earlier.

We virtually expended our percentage of that. So our money is in there. We are

now trying to convince the federal government to leave their money there.

With respect to: will our money be left if the additional

$1.5 million is reduced?.. at this point in time we've not agreed that the $1.5

million will be reduced from our position. Our position is the federal

government should leave that money there because most of the programs that are

in place are ongoing. We have to date committed funds and have spent funds in

terms of our share of that $1.5 million and we've not agreed to date that that

$1.5 million should disappear. The hon. member is right, the federal government

did and does have a policy that they want to reduce by that amount, but we've

not agreed jointly at this point in time.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for

St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: I would tell the minister that the fact that

it is your cousins now that are in Ottawa, you should be able to convince them

to keep the $1.5 million in. I realize it was our cousins who may have suggested

the cut.

Mr. Speaker, when the agreement was announced the development

of the Cape St. Mary's Ecological Reserve was highlighted as one of the major

developments. Two major projects were to be put in place to enhance this

world-renowned site. One was the paving of the access road, which was completed

this fall; the other was the interpretive centre which is planned to be

constructed next spring. Will the minister confirm today that this development

at Cape St. Mary's that will enhance the entire tourism industry of Newfoundland

and Labrador will be proceeding as scheduled?

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member starts

talking about friends in Ottawa today and friends in Ottawa before, allow me to

assure the member that it was his friends who reduced the number by $1.2

million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Furthermore, it was his colleagues who all the

way through the election campaign up to election day, when they were reduced to

the perfect party in Canada, a man and a woman, bilingual and not bilingual - by

the way, I should tell the member that I wrote Elsie Wayne a letter yesterday

and suggested that she should stay with Jean Charest, because even he shouldn't

be as lonely as the Maytag repairman - but it was his friends in Ottawa who sat

on documents and refused to sign documents so projects in his own district could

be up and running at the present time. They sat on the agreements, they wouldn't

sign them, and they are still trying to hold them up. Fortunately at least now

we have someone who is willing to talk to us about a project that his friends

tried to cancel in his district.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister responsible for the Status of

Women. I want to ask the minister what she is doing to assist in the righting of

a historic wrong in the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary? There is a recruitment

drive on right now and up until 1980 only men were allowed in the force. There

was a positive affirmative action program for men for many years. There are now

twenty-three uniformed women out of 340. There is an opportunity now to try and

right that so what is she doing to right that imbalance in the ten recruits that

are being brought forward now? Is she doing anything at all?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That particular item does not fall within my purview

directly. Certainly, changes that we envision in the women's community as being

effected in society are taking place in the Women's Policy Office all the time,

the type of policies that would encourage women to stretch beyond their

traditional roles, but the question that has been addressed to me by the Member

for St. John's East is not one that I would deal with directly.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity

to call her the Minister of Excuses and we are hearing that again. Does the

minister not see affirmative action for women in the police force to make the

police force more representative of the population that it protects and serves

as part of her job? Does she not see affirmative action programs as part of her

job as the minister responsible for the Status of Women?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: We do not have a policy related to affirmative

action. Certainly I would like to see, personally and as the government, we

would like to see as many women involved in every facet of life, including the

New Democratic Party, and would certainly strive in that direction.

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

for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, out of the 2500 applicants that

I am told there are for these ten positions in the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary, can the minister satisfy herself that there shall be at least five

of them superbly qualified women who should take their place as members of the

police force?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I am not involved in the hiring

of individuals for the Constabulary or for the RCMP, or for any other

enforcement agency of that nature.

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

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: I would like to direct my question to the

Minister of Environment and Lands. I asked her a few questions and one in

particular was a rather simple and routine question but the response I got was

tabled here and took seven pages, so for the sake of expediency I will keep my

questions simple.

In response to a question put to the minister in the House

last week concerning Come By Chance Oil Refinery emissions the minister said the

department's responsibility is not to monitor but to check the monitoring. Could

the minister tell the House why the government chose not to monitor but just to

check the monitoring data? Why is that?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: I did not quite hear all his question but I

believe it was related to monitoring of Come By Chance and why the government

checks the monitoring rather than the monitors themselves? That is a question

that governments and industry wrestle with across Canada: Who should do the

monitoring? In most provinces the monitoring is done by the industry itself with

the government periodically checking the monitoring to see if it appears that

all is going well. What we are doing now with Come By Chance is that we are able

to do both -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)

MS. COWAN: I would like to remind the member of the

opposition who it was that opened Come By Chance, just another one of the

multitude of problems left to this government by the former administration.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I cannot hear the hon. minister.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, our department has the computer

capability to download information from the monitors at Come By Chance at will,

so there are a combination of programs there. One a reporting to us by the

company and we can also double check the monitoring. It is also checked by

Environment Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

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

galleries, four students and their instructor Scott Riley from Cabot College

Adult Basic Education at Trepassey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to report on the Social Services Committee. We

have reviewed and approved for passage, without amendment, Bills 29, 35, 45, 38

and 55; and with amendments, Bills 41 and 47.

MS. VERGE: Explain the amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

I want to table the report of the Standing Committee on

public accounts respecting the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year

ended, 31st March, 1991. In so doing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to

the House that the committee conducted some thirteen meetings during the course

of the year, and the report that I am tabling now, on behalf of the Public

Accounts Committee, is in fact the committee tabling the report of the previous

committee, since an election came in between and we have had a new committee

constituted in the House just a few days ago, in fact, passed a motion which

gives the present committee authority to deal with the evidence and information

taken by the previous committee and to report thereon.

I want to, on behalf of the present committee and

particularly on behalf of myself, thank members of the previous committee who

are no longer with us, for all their diligence and their work in following out

the work of the committee, and let me say, Mr. Speaker, that having attended a

conference of Public Accounts Committees in Ontario this summer, together with

my friend from Eagle River, that our committee I think, stands very well across

Canada and that we are probably one of the most foremost committees, we probably

progressed further than any Public Accounts Committee of Canada; we are probably

far more mature in our approach to dealing with the business of the House that

referred to the committee and, in fact leading the way in Canada as it relates

to the work of Public Accounts Committee, and I want to say that that is due in

a large measure to the attitude taken by members from both sides of the House

who have dealt with their responsibilities I think in an extremely responsible

and non-political manner, over the past couple of years at least that I have

been involved, and I go back to 1976 when the committee was first formed, I was

one of the members of the first Public Accounts Committees and it was a highly

political animal at that point in time.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) 1978 or '79 (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, it was not that late, it was before

that, in 1976 the -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, it changed. Once we got rid of the

present federal Member for Burin - St. Georges, whatever his name was, who was

the first Chair, Mr. Speaker. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay compliments to

the members of the previous committee, some of whom are no longer with us, such

as the Member for St. John's South, and a couple members who are no longer here;

the Member for La Poile was a member of that committee, and the Minister of

Tourism of course, and the former Member for Torngat Mountains who was a member

of that committee and Placentia. All the members, Mr. Speaker, have done an

extremely good job in fulfilling their responsibilities in the committee, so I

table that report on behalf of the Public Accounts Committees.

But, Mr. Speaker, having said that, if I might, while I am on

this topic, I would like to raise a point of privilege relating to the business

of the Public Accounts Committee, but it is a point of personal privilege as

members of the House of Assembly, who have had their basic parliamentary right,

that being the right of privilege to speak freely, taken away by actions of the

committee, and the only recourse that I have, of course, is by way of a point of

personal privilege in this hon. House, and ask, you, Mr. Speaker, to deal with

the issue.

The issue arose, Mr. Speaker, when on October 12, we had a

verbal request from the Minister of Social Services, through the Member for

Eagle River, not to continue with hearings scheduled for October 13, relating to

the award of public tenders or proposals relating to three health care clinics

around the Province, an issue of which all hon. members are aware.

Your Honour will recall that last year, the previous

committee I think it was, agreed not to proceed at that time because it was a

matter before the courts and the committee in its wisdom decided at that point

in time, not to proceed. That arises from a convention, Mr. Speaker, that has

been recognized in the British Parliament, in the Canadian Parliament and in

this hon. House over the years. I will give some references to that in due

course, the purpose being - and perhaps it is set down best, Mr. Speaker, in

some of the references that I wanted to refer to. Actually, the first reference

I will give you, Mr. Speaker, comes from Beauchesne,

Section 505, it says,

"Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the

courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub judice

convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and

persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a

voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice

and fair play."

Mr. Speaker, there are many distinctions drawn on matters

that can be resolved, particularly civil matters that can be dealt with, by a

monetary award. Your Honour will recall that when this dispute between the

various contractors who bid on that particular proposal and government arose,

the matter was referred to the courts in this Province, and it was at that time

that the former committee decided we should not proceed with the matter as it

then stood. That court, Mr. Speaker, ruled eventually, and rightly so, I think -

the matter that was referred was seeking an injunction that government not be

permitted to award that contract because of some alleged irregularities; that is

all very well and good - that court eventually ruled, Your Honour, that the

court could not deal with the issue because it was not a matter of such urgency

that recourse was not available. In other words, the plaintiff could receive

recompense by way of a monetary award. So the courts ruled that there was no

reason to stop the proceedings, to stop the award of the contract, to stop the

health clinics from being built and that if the claim was a valid one, those

contractors or those bidders who had filed a statement of claim could be

recompensed by way of a monetary award. So we are talking a civil matter.

Now, Your Honour, I want to make several references to the

very clear distinction between matters for which this convention has been held,

that is, matters that are before the court, particularly where a person may be

found guilty, may be sentenced to court - we are the ones whose reputation is in

danger versus civil matters where we are simply making the argument of whether

the matter is an accurate one or it isn't, whether or not somebody has a claim

for monetary reward in lieu of damages that might or might not have been done

against that person.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give Your Honour some

references. These references come from the Parliamentarian Magazine , with

which we are all very familiar, but they are references to procedures in various

Parliaments and studies that have been done on this particular issue. I would

like to read a number of references, Mr. Speaker, that I think are very

appropriate. `It is accepted practice that in the interest of justice and fair

play, certain restrictions should be placed on the freedom of members of

Parliament to make reference in the course of debate to matters awaiting

judicial decision and that such matters should not form the subject of a motion

or a question to a minister. The

interpretation of this convention is left to

the Speaker. The word convention is used advisedly, as no rule exists to prevent

Parliament discussing a matter which is sub judice.' Now, that is very

important, Mr. Speaker, that there is very clearly, no rule. It is left to the

discretion, in the first instances, of members, themselves, who have a

responsibility, as hon. members, not to bring a matter before the courts which

would unfairly prejudice the basic rights of individuals. Secondly, Mr. Speaker,

the onus is on Your Honour, or on the Speaker of whichever Parliament is

appropriate at the time - on the Speaker - to decide if permitting debate would,

in fact, prejudice the rights of individuals.

Mr. Speaker, the second reference I want to give is the

question - the same question has been a matter of debate in many cases, but was

debated in the House of Commons on May 2, 1966. Speaker Lamoureux, at that time,

gave what has been referred to as probably the most definitive ruling on the

matter. He says, and I quote: "When there is doubt in the mind of the Chair, I

believe there is an obligation on the part of the Speaker to give the benefit of

whatever doubt there may be in his mind to the hon. member who wishes to discuss

such a matter in the Chamber."

In other words, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, at the time, was

clearly stating that the rights and privileges of members of their freedom to

speak in Parliament is paramount, and that only in the most extreme cases should

a Speaker rule in favour of a member not being permitted to speak.

The most recent statement in this article, or a later

statement from the Chair, emphasized the need for clarification of the practice,

particularly in relation to civil proceedings. Again, we get the clear

distinction between criminal matters, where a person could be found criminally

liable, or a civil matter.

The issue arose from a question to a minister relating to a

matter which was a subject of a police investigation. The member asking the

question, Mr. Elmer MacKay, had previously been served with a Civil Writ of

Summons and a Statement of Claim, alleging libel by a company which was

associated with the matter under investigation.

The Speaker expressed his reservations with regard to the

question, as it concerned a matter before the courts, but on February 10, 1976,

a discussion took place in the House, at his invitation, which amounted to a

review of the practice both in Canada and Great Britain.

Mr. MacKay contended that his question was admissible because

the libel suit had not been set down for trial and that, in any case, the

question fell outside the narrow context of the action itself. He maintained

that `a member of Parliament, I submit, has a right and a duty to pursue

investigations and ask questions on behalf of his constituents and the general

public, and any interference or obstructions in this respect must be undertaken

very carefully and supported by citations and precedence of the greatest weight

and substance.'

It goes on to say that the opinions expressed by those who

participated in the discussion largely supported these contentions. The majority

of members of the House of Commons, at that time, supported those contentions.

The Progressive Conservative House Leader at the time, Mr.

Gerald Baldwin, went to some length to review Canadian\British precedence and

concluded, and I quote: `That it would be invidious and a great disservice to

the political life of this country, and to the affairs of this Parliament, if it

were possible to prevent an honourable member from discharging his duty and

continuing an enquiry into a matter which needs enquiry merely by issuing a

Statement of Claim against him.'

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having difficulty hearing the hon. member, and I want to

clearly understand his argument, so if members could hold down their

conversations a bit, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Both sides of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just pointed out that I am having trouble hearing the hon.

member, and I want to make sure I understand his argument in full. The hon.

member may continue.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you very much, Your Honour.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member was saying

at the time was that it would be a great disservice to our rights and

privileges, as members of Parliament, if, at any point in time, an issue were

before the House to be debated, and if any individual could simply go to a court

in the land and lay a Statement of Claim - simply a Statement of Claim - saying,

`I think that something is being done improperly'.

Now, that court might take some time before it decided if

that Statement of Claim was a legitimate Statement of Claim that the court would

even bother to hear, let alone set down a court date, let alone have evidence

presented and finally get to a trial; but obviously, if any member of the

general public, or any member of this House - and I might use an example: the

issue being debated on the sale of Hydro, if hon. members opposite didn't like

the debate in this House, any hon. member could go to the Supreme Court of

Newfoundland and make some Statement of Claim of some sort of a civil action -

not even a criminal action, even just a civil action - and because that

Statement of Claim was simply filed with the court, that this House could be

precluded from debating that question.

So there is a very important issue here, Mr. Speaker. It is

just what is it that can possibly result in the rights and responsibilities of

members of this hon. House to speak at a particular issue being taken away? It

is a very, very important and basic issue - a difficult issue, Your Honour,

which has been debated at great length in many forums.

Now, where was I? The New Democratic House Leader - I say to

my friend for St. John's East, who is not here - Mr. Stanley Knowles, at that

time, submitted that: `of the two absolutes, freedom of speech is superior to

the dictum that there cannot be reference to a matter that is sub judice'; a

very wise and very astute observation. He pointed out: `if the convention were

applied too rigidly where civil proceedings were concerned it would be possible

to prevent a member from pursuing an issue for months or even years.' There is

the whole point again, Mr. Speaker, as I have been pointing out.

On February 10, 1976, arising from the same debate, a former

Speaker, Mr. Marcel Lambert, wound up the discussion with a short speech in

which he stated, quote: `I suggest, as other Speakers have, that every exception

placing limitations on the right to ask questions must be interpreted narrowly.

It is not the right which must be interpreted narrowly, it is the exception or

derogation of the right which should be interpreted narrowly.'

On the following day, the Speaker at the time ruled: `No

restriction ought to exist on the right of any member to put questions

respecting any matter before the courts, particularly those relating to a civil

matter, unless and until that matter is at least at trial.' A very important

aspect - Except, unless and until, that matter is at least at trial. In other

words, if the issue is now in the court, if the trial is proceeding. Examples

are available here where, in fact, even then Speakers have ruled that the line

of questioning is not something that can take away from the case. In fact, in a

case of a civil case it is very rare indeed that anything has been ruled out of

order. In other words, very rarely when a civil matter is before the courts,

even before the courts, have the rights of members been taken away to speak to

or question matters relating to that issue in Parliament.

A resolution of the British House of Commons on July 22,

1963, makes a careful distinction between criminal and civil matters and it is

very precise in its determination of when the sub judice convention should begin

or cease to apply. `The essence of the problem is the need to protect the

interests of individuals to the extent that it is consistent with the protection

of the national interest. In the final analysis, it is on the discretion of the

Speaker that the House of Assembly must rely, aided by whatever guidelines the

House might choose to lay down. It is on him, or her, that the ultimate

responsibility must rest as the traditional protector of the rights of members,

and in this context, of the rights of those outside Parliament as well.' In

other words, what that is saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a responsibility

here to speak on behalf of our constituents. So it is their rights, in fact, as

well as our own that are being taken away if members are not permitted to

proceed to speak.

On December 13, 1976, the House of Commons of Canada

appointed a special committee to deal with this very issue. The committee held

three meetings during which it studied how the rights and immunities of members

were affected by the sub judice convention. I will give you just a few extracts

from the report.

`The freedom of speech accorded to Members of Parliament is a

fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of

their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer

to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, and to say what they feel

needs to be said in the furtherance in the national interest and the aspirations

of their constituents. This basic parliamentary freedom is to some extent

limited by the sub judice convention.'

Later on, they go on to say: `The purpose of the convention

is to protect the parties in a case of waiting or undergoing trial, and persons

who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It exists to

guarantee everyone a fair trial and to prevent any undue influence prejudicing a

judicial decision or a report of a tribunal of inquiry. It is important to

emphasize that it is a convention and not a rule.'

Again, later, they say: `What effect a parliamentary

discussion may have on the court, the jury, the witnesses, and the parties to an

action is not easy to determine. One thing that can be stated with certainty is

that courts in interpreting statutes have no regard for anything that might have

been said in the course of parliamentary debate', a very, very important

observation of that special Select Committee of the House of Commons.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. House Leader will have an

opportunity to speak later, Mr. Speaker. I am on a point of privilege and he

knows full well that interruptions are not acceptable, but I will say to him as

a response to that, that we don't know if it is true or not. We can only assume

that our Justices of the Supreme Court and juries - juries perhaps may be

influenced by news media, but we have to have confidence in the hon. judges of

our courts in a civil matter, that they will look at the fact of law that is

presented to them by both the plaintiffs and the defendants and not be unduly

influenced by effects outside, and that is what the Parliamentary Committee here

has concluded. They say that with certainty, courts in interpreting statutes

have no regard for anything that might have been said in the course of

parliamentary debate. In essence, they have gone a little further and said that

the House of Parliament, the House of Commons, or House of Assemblies, as the

case may be, in passing a statute or a bill, enacting a law of the land, no

matter what might have been said in the debate, whatever the intent of

individual members might be, no matter what the understanding of individual

members might be, that the courts interpret the letter of the law; the words

that are in that legislation, in that act, that is what the courts will

interpret as they see fit, and are not influenced at all by anything that might

be said in this hon. House or any other House that may be considered.

Mr. Speaker, later on the committee goes on to conclude, `The

committee has not been able to determine a rationale for the sub judice

convention other than the prevention of possible prejudice. It is very unlikely

that a judge will be influenced' - it goes on to say what I had just mentioned -

`that a judge would be influenced by what is said in the House. Presumably the

convention is concerned with the protection of juries and witnesses from undue

influence.' They concluded, `In the view of your committee, the justification

for the convention has not been established beyond all doubt, although it would

not go so far as to recommend that it be totally abolished. Your committee

believes, however, that any modification of the practice should be in the

direction of greater flexibility rather than stricter application.' In other

words, their finding is that we should be more flexible in allowing members to

speak, and again, that it should be only in the most extreme cases that the

rights of members should be taken away. `It is not possible to determine whether

or to what extent comments made in Parliament might affect the outcome of a

trial or an inquiry. The Chair is seldom in possession of the necessary

information to determine whether or not a prejudicial effect is likely. It

follows that the House should not be unduly fettered by a convention, the basis

of which is uncertain.' In other words, it is saying that Your Honour, in

deciding on such an issue, would very likely not be in possession of sufficient

information to really determine if the debate that is about to take place, if

what Your Honour might think members are about to say, or what the results might

be, might in any way be injurious to the rights of individuals who are involved

in any kind of a trial. Certainly, as it relates to a criminal trial, Your

Honour, I think, might tend to lean a little more towards the benefit of the

individuals who are on trial, but in a civil matter it has been clearly accepted

that such is not the case. To conclude: `On no account should the convention,

which has been applied infrequently in years past, come to be regarded as a

fixed and binding rule. It is not unreasonable, for example, that Parliament

should be any more limited in its debate concerning judicial proceedings than is

the press in reporting on such proceedings.' Mr. Speaker, here is another

important point: unless the courts have issued a ban on publication of any

evidence that is being presented so that the news media are still quite free to

deal with any information that is coming from the courts, to publish it in

newspapers, to make whatever comment, editorial or otherwise, they see fit, what

the committee is saying is, why indeed, should members of the House of Assembly

who are protected by parliamentary privilege, right and responsibility, to speak

on an issue - why should the rights of individual members, Mr. Speaker, be taken

away from them?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude very soon. I

know hon. members opposite don't like what they are hearing, but nevertheless,

Mr. Speaker, they are going to hear it.

Mr. Speaker, referring again to Beauchesne -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: May we have more quiet in the House. I have

trouble hearing the hon. member's argument and I think it is important to get

all his points. Please continue.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Section 507 of Beauchesne, subsection (2) says again: "In

civil cases the convention does not apply until the matter has reached the trial

stage."

So again, here not only is that a reference to parliamentary

practice that I have given you and precedence that had been given, Beauchesne

basically says very clearly, that convention does not apply until the matter has

reached the trial stage. Some of the precedents, some of the rulings by Speakers

that I have referred to, say that, even then, it is not clear and, in fact, many

examples exist, that matters have been debated even during the trial stage on a

civil matter in particular.

Section 509 states: "the Speaker should remain the final

arbiter in the matter but should exercise discretion only in exceptional cases.

In doubtful cases the Speaker should rule in favour of debate and against the

convention." That is Beauchesne, very clearly saying that Your Honour, if he has

any doubt at all, should err in favour of freedom of speech.

Section 510 says: "the House has never allowed the sub judice

convention to stand in the way of its consideration of a matter vital to the

public interest or to the effective operation of the House." And finally,

Section 511 - this is the basis of my whole point, Mr. Speaker:

"The freedom of speech accorded to Members of Parliament is a

fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of

their duties. The Speaker should interfere with that freedom of speech only in

exceptional cases where it is clear that to do otherwise could be harmful to

specific individuals."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I could go on and give Your Honour other

references that I have here before me, but I think I have clearly established a

number of points here that I want to emphasize very quickly: first of all, that

the paramount right, is a right and responsibility of members to freedom of

speech in the House. Clearly, in civil matters, there are very clear precedents

and examples showing that the rights of individuals cannot be taken away by

that, that they will not be adversely affected, and in this particular case, by

the ruling that was brought down in the reference for an injunction, His Honour

at the time, the judge in the case, basically replied that there is a monetary

manner in which the plaintiff can be accommodated, therefore, there was no

reason to issue an injunction at the time; clearly here, as well, what we are

talking is simply a monetary issue, a civil matter, and that the rights of

individuals cannot be prejudiced by the Public Accounts Committee, continuing on

with the responsibilities that they have to deal with this particular issue.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will stop there and I will say to Your

Honour, that if Your Honour finds that this is a valid point of privilege, and I

submit that it is, I submit that the rights of individual members -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you. My friend reminds me, one aspect

that I didn't deal with was the procedures that were followed in the Public

Accounts Committee, Your Honour.

On receiving the verbal request from the Minister of Social

Services on October 12, late in the day, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, Mr. Speaker - a verbal request, and I might simply point out as

well, Mr. Speaker, that, that minister knew for many weeks, several months, in

fact, that these hearings were scheduled; indeed, the hearings were rescheduled

to accommodate the assistant deputy minister who was the prime witness called

before the committee. So there was ample time for the minister or his deputy or

any officials who were called, to advise the committee of the House, that they

would not be available, or that they did not wish to be here.

Late in the day, after hearings were scheduled, witnesses

called into St. John's to conduct hearings, we received this verbal request,

through the Deputy Chair or Vice-Chair of the committee. The committee

considered it late in the day and it was decided, because we had no written

request, we had no detailed information on which the minister was basing his

request, we decided that perhaps we should give the minister the benefit of the

doubt and find out at least if he had any valid arguments that we were not aware

of. So the committee sought to do that.

I wrote, on behalf of the committee, and received a response

from the minister which basically provided no new information that the committee

was not aware of, and no valid arguments, in my view, that would preclude the

committee from hearing the matter.

The matter was then brought before the committee, Mr.

Speaker, but the majority of members of the committee, of course, voted not to

hear the issue, so, in fact, the only recourse left to me, therefore, was to

advise Your Honour, by way of a point of personal privilege, that my privileges,

as a member of that committee and as a member of this House, have been

prejudiced by the fact that I, and other members of the committee, have not been

given an opportunity.

Now, Your Honour, as Chairman of that committee, of course,

it is for me to replace Your Honour in committees. The Chairman of the committee

basically acts as Mr. Speaker and chairs the committee, and when a question

arises it is my responsibility, of course, to determine, if I can, what the

legal implications are. I have to advise Your Honour that I did consult the

Clerk of the House on that occasion and was given considerable references to the

issue, some of which I have quoted to Your Honour here today, and referred to

Your Honour here today, and it was the clear understanding from the Clerk, at

the time, the Law Clerk who also advises committees, that there was no reason

whatsoever that the committee should not proceed.

Admittedly, that is the advice of the Clerk, and the House or

committees are not bound to take the advice of the Clerk, but we had a very

clear opinion from the Clerk and, in the face of that, the committee voted

against proceeding with this particular matter.

So, Your Honour, I submit that my rights and privileges as a

member have been severely hampered by this procedure, as they have been of other

members, and if Your Honour is prepared to find that I have a valid point, then

I am prepared to enter the appropriate motion and to continue debate.

Thank you, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: If I may, I might ask the hon. member a few

questions so I understand exactly the detail we are dealing with before I hear

from the hon. member.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words

if I might.

The hon. gentleman has obviously done a great deal of

exhaustive research. Now, I had no notice this was coming up, nor to my

knowledge, did any member on this side. I am certainly completely unable to

respond to any of what he said in the sense of dealing with the endless,

exhaustive and exhausting citations and so forth.

I am not sure, with respect, it would be proper for Your

Honour to enter into a discussion by means of question. I am not sure that is

the function of the Chair in this situation.

Your Honour, my understanding is that the procedure with

respect to privilege is that one makes a brief statement and asks if it is a

prima facie case. We have had about a half-an-hour-worth of speech which I

didn't interrupt. I am not sure whether I should have, or could have, but I

chose not to; but I must say, I do think it is an abuse of the privileges of all

of this House to subject us to half-an-hour of this kind of material when a

brief statement is what is required. I would like, though, to say one or two

things in response to some of the points made by my friend.

First, let me tell him that my comment with respect to that

statement made, I believe, by a Committee of the Commons, that judges never look

at what is said in Legislatures, was that it was a statement that was made by

that committee, presumably believing it was true, but the statement is false. I

need go no further than

an act passed by this House in 1980 called The Upper

Churchill Reversion Act. I may have the name of it wrong, but when that act was

tested on a reference made by the then government led by Mr. Peckford, in the

Court of Appeal and eventually on appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada, in each

case, the judges who heard the matter not only referred to the debates in this

House, and material produced by the government, but used them as the basis to

destroy the act.

Brian Peckford destroyed the Upper Churchill Reversion Act by

his own words here in this House of Assembly, so if the hon. gentleman - he was,

I think, part of that government - thinks for a moment that courts do not make

reference to what is said in legislatures, he is living, I fear, in a fool's

paradise, but that is really by the bye. Let me just come back to the substance

of it.

I know nothing of the proceedings of the PAC. I am not a

member of the committee and I have not sat in on any of its hearings. I will

leave it to my friend for Eagle River, who is the Vice-Chairman of the

committee, to address what went on or what didn't go on. But I can make two

points: the first is that my advice to my colleague was that, as this matter was

before the courts, it would have been inappropriate for the committee, in my

judgement, to enter into a discussion of it. That is my advice, be it right or

wrong. I took the advice, not on my own, I took the advice, obviously, after

consultation with my solicitors and the lawyers who are addressing these matters

for me; but let there be no doubt, my colleague was acting on my advice. That is

one of my roles around here, to provide advice to the members of the government.

Secondly, I can say a word about the sub judice rule: it is only a convention,

as my hon. friend for Mount Pearl quite properly said, nonetheless, it is one

that must be taken seriously in both criminal and civil matters. I am not able

to get into the merits of it now because I haven't done the research on it. I am

not going to try to scrabble around in Beauchesne or in these other authorities

and find references at this stage, but it is a rule that must be taken

seriously, all the moreso because we, here in a Parliament - and this is a

Parliament in the eyes of the law - because we, here in parliament, have a

protected privileged right of speech. It is sometimes abused, in my view. If the

hon. gentleman for Grand Bank had said outside the House what he said inside the

House, on statements of fact, he could have been called to account before the

courts of the land.

MR. TOBIN: Maybe you will have to explain your actions

(inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry, I would gladly explain my

actions, Mr. Speaker, anywhere, anytime, any place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Let me say that the sub judice rule is one

which, in my judgement, ought to be taken seriously.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me go on to deal with the matter of

privilege, which is the matter before the Chair now. Beauchesne attempts to

define privilege - the citations are 24 and 25, on pages 11 and 12. I am

reading, of course, from the current edition, which, if memory serves me, is the

Sixth, by Allister Fraser, an old colleague of mine, and Professor Dawson and

Mr. Holtby. "Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed

by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of

Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could

not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies

or individuals." They are the same theme, that we must treat these rights with

great care.

I will go to the end of the second paragraph I cited, Mr.

Speaker, on page 12. I am citing here the Speaker in 1971, Mr. Speaker

Lamoureux, if memory serves me, but memory may have failed me. Anyway, whoever

was the Speaker of the Commons in 1971 said, `In my view, parliamentary

privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of

Commons and the right of a Member to discharge his duties in the House as a

Member of the House of Commons.' Now, that is what privilege is. We all have

highfalutin knowledge, we sometimes get carried away with our own importance in

this House, not realizing that we are only here for a short time and for a

specific purpose. There is nothing in what was done by the PAC, in my

understanding, Mr. Speaker, that amounts to a breach of the privileges of either

an individual member of the House or the House as a whole. What the committee

did, in my understanding, is vote by a majority; having heard advice tendered by

my colleague, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, they voted by

a majority not to deal with a certain matter at this time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in my submission, the committee have every

right to make such a motion if they wish, and the members have every right to

adopt it if they wish, and it then takes the status of any other motion adopted

by the majority acting within their proper parameters of authority. My friend

for Mount Pearl made the point that the committee is master of its own affairs,

and here, of course, his argument collapses completely because he simply meets

himself coming around the corner and he doesn't like what he should see.

The role of the Chair is to decide if it is a prima facie

point of privilege, in my understanding. There isn't, because all that happened

was that the committee decided not to deal with a matter. That doesn't affect

anybody's privileges. My hon. friend gave us a long disposition on the sub

judice rule. The disposition may be valid or it may not be valid, but it is

irrelevant to the point before the Chair. If my hon. friend wants to comment and

wants to submit that the committee had no business adopting such a motion - if

he said the motion were out of order or it were beyond their authority as a

committee then, Mr. Speaker, there might be a matter of privilege, but in my

submission, the committee was acting squarely and clearly within its authority

and, as my friend for Mount Pearl said, the Committee is master of its own

affairs, as is each committee of this House.

I might not like what a majority of a committee do. I have

had an example today of something a committee does that I may find a little

difficult to accept, but committees have the right to do these things.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you go along with (inaudible)?

MR. ROBERTS: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you go along with (inaudible)?

MR. ROBERTS: I will go along with any proper advice by

the Committee, but advice that is ill-founded I will not accept, nor will the

government.

Mr. Speaker, in effect, what my hon. friend for Mount Pearl

is doing is asking the House, in the guise of a privilege motion, to decide a

matter of policy, not one of privilege. He is simply challenging the decision of

a majority in the Committee. He has every right to do so but there are proper

means to do it. When the Committee's report comes before the House, as it will

and must, there will be an opportunity to debate it, if he wishes. We do not

debate the committee's report, as a rule, but there is a motion to deal with a

committee's report, and we can deal with it. There is the supply procedure.

There are any number of ways that my hon. friend, within the rules, can

challenge the decision of a majority of the PAC.

The way he cannot challenge it, in my submission, is by

raising a point a privilege, or seeking to raise one. In my submission, Mr.

Speaker, without getting at all into the merits of the sub judice rule, or

anything else, the matter can be decided very simply by looking at the pith and

essence of what went on. The Committee, by a majority, decided not to deal with

a topic of this kind. That is my understanding. My friend for Eagle River, the

vice-chairman of the Committee, confirms that. That is not a matter of

privilege, Sir, that is a matter of debate, a matter of policy. It doesn't

affect the privileges of my friend for Mount Pearl, any other member of the

Committee, the Committee as a whole, or the House as a whole.

I accordingly, Your Honour, would request and submit that you

rule that my hon. friend has not met the hurdle of establishing that a prima

facie point of privilege exists and that the matter ought to be allowed to go

forward.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it would

be useful for all members of the House to understand the proceedings of the

committee and how this issue came to be as it is today. I want to submit at the

outset that there is no point of privilege. I would use the words of the Chair

as the basis for that submission, and that is that the committee does have a

mandate to be master of its own affairs.

I was a member of the committee, and so was the Member for

Mount Pearl, who was actually the chairman of the committee, when I was an

ordinary member a year-and-a-half or so ago, when the committee met to discuss

this very issue. This chairman of the committee, and the committee itself,

unanimously decided that while this issue was before the courts, the committee

did not have the right, and certainly made the decision not to proceed with any

public hearings on the issue. That was a decision that was made for all the

right reasons at that particular time and endorsed unanimously by the committee,

obviously with the consent of the chairman.

In June of this year, we met again and decided to map out a

schedule for our hearings, and we put this issue back on the agenda, because, at

the time, the court ruled on an injunction. Therefore, it was assumed at the

time by members of the committee on our side, and I assumed, for the members on

the other side, that because the injunction was out of the way there were no

further legal proceedings on the matter before the courts. Therefore, we

proceeded to

schedule a public hearing on this issue.

It wasn't until a short while before that public hearing was

scheduled that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation notified the

committee, through me, that yes, indeed, he had been notified by the Department

of Justice that there were two outstanding matters before the courts, and

therefore, I had the responsibility, as a member of the committee which made the

original decision, to then go back and say that we would follow the same rules.

There was nothing different, at that point in time, from what it was the

previous year when the issue first came up. Then we made the appropriate motion

- not to say that this issue would never, ever be discussed, but we said, in

line with the precedent that we had established unanimously by the committee, we

would now follow the same logic and not have any public hearings on the issue

until the proceedings were finished at the court level.

Mr. Speaker, that is the position that we have taken. We have

certainly done nothing to interfere with the privileges of the Member for Mount

Pearl, or any member of this House. Any member of this House may get up at

Question Period, or at any time during the proceedings of the House, and

indicate his feelings on this issue, or ask questions of the government on this

issue, so we have certainly done nothing to that. All we have done is abide by

the precedent that we established unanimously by the committee, follow the same

logic today, and the reason that we did

schedule the hearings, Mr. Speaker, was

because we had assumed, and were not told, that there were any proceedings

before the court.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no point of privilege and

we fully intend to have this issue heard at the appropriate time. I am sure that

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will be only too happy to

co-operate with us when the time comes to do this, in line with the advice that

the Department of Justice has given him and his ministry.

Mr. Speaker, with that background, I would hope that all

members would understand that we have certainly done nothing, as members of the

committee on the government side, to circumvent the rules and take away any of

the privileges of any members of the hon. House or members of the Public

Accounts Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WINDSOR: Could I just make a very brief response,

Your Honour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Your Honour has been very patient, and hon.

members, and I just want to very briefly respond to the point the hon. the

Member for Eagle River and the hon. the Government House Leader have made - the

matter before the courts.

The original decision by the committee to defer, because the

matter was before the courts, was one that I agreed with at the time, even

though, in cases of civil matters, even when the issue is before the courts we

don't necessarily have to preclude ourselves from speaking.

At this particular point in time, Your Honour, there is no

matter before the courts, and Your Honour is learned in law and knows more about

these issues than I do. The matter is simply a Statement of Claim made. No court

date has been set. We don't even know if the matter, in fact, will ever come to

trial, and I sought legal advice on that, Your Honour, so there is a clear

distinction here about the fact that this matter is not before the courts, nor

will we expect it to be before the courts for some time.

That is precisely why we have so many references here in

Beauchesne, saying that in civil matters, members should not be precluded from

debating those issues at least until - and even then not necessarily so, but at

least until - the matter is before the court, and actually in court, on trial,

Your Honour. This matter is a long way from coming to trial.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.

Because the hon. gentleman did not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having a little trouble hearing the hon. member speak.

MR. ROBERTS: Because the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl

did not give me notice of this matter - and he has no obligation to do so, it is

only a courtesy that one would expect, and there is no obligation, but because

he did not, I have no detailed knowledge of this. It has been some time since I

saw a dossier dealing with this file. I don't know the status of the pleadings,

to use the technical term.

I gather, from what he said, that a Statement of Claim has

been issued. I don't know whether a defence has been filed. I know nothing at

all except I have a recollection that the advice I gave was as I told the House

earlier.

I am not sure what turns on that, Mr. Speaker, because the

important point here is not the sub judice rule, I suggest. The important point

is the fact that the hon. gentleman simply doesn't like a decision of a

committee of the House - a decision which, in my submission, was properly taken

and within the parameters of the authority of that committee.

Should, however, something turn on this question of the

status of pleadings I would suggest, with respect, that Your Honour make

enquiries, either through Your Clerk or by means of members, as you prefer. I

would point out there is nothing before the House, Mr. Speaker, with respect to

that matter at all, the status of the pleadings. I am told, for example, by my

friend for Eagle River, that the status of the lawsuit is precisely the same now

as it was a year ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I get two members, neither of whom is

a lawyer, making comments on legal matters. If something turns on it, let's get

the facts and let's deal with it. In my submission -

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry?

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) Chairman of the Committee, I got

the facts and (inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, gets

sullen, surly and difficult. I listened to him with great patience. Let him

listen to me with patience, or impatience, as he might prefer to do.

What I want to say is I, with respect, will not take my legal

advice from the gentleman for Mount Pearl. I may or may not take advice from him

on other matters, but I certainly will not take my legal advice from him.

Mr. Speaker, my submission again is that the matter is simply

a complaint about a decision of a committee rather than a point of privilege. I

will let the matter stand there, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: If I may -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to make

a brief submission in support of the argument put forth by my colleague, the

Member for Mount Pearl. Especially in view of the fact there have been three

submissions by that side, so I thought I would try to even it off.

I just want to make a brief comment on the issue of matters

that are sub judice. I know I'm not a lawyer, but I know from past experience in

the Chair when I was Speaker that there was always a convention about not

allowing questions that were perceived or were in fact sub judice before the

courts, and as Beauchesne says, in the 6th edition himself, paragraph 505:

"The purpose of this sub judice convention is to protect the

parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be

affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry."

I always interpreted that to mean you need to take a look at

the specific topic or the specific issue that is being raised. Whether it is a

matter of a criminal nature is one thing, but if it is not, and it is a civil

case, then as Beauchesne again says in paragraph 507, "... the convention does

not apply..." in the case of civil cases, at least "...until the matter has

reached the trial stage."

I think the point of privilege raised by the Member for Mount

Pearl deserves, and I'm sure it will get, serious consideration. Considerable

thought will be given to it. Because it is a serious matter that he has raised.

Not simply the question of the privilege, but the question of the issue itself

is a matter that we have been trying to get at for quite some time, as Your

Honour would know, observing, but which we have had a lot of difficulty with.

We've not been able to get answers on this issue that have been satisfactory. In

recent months the reasons for not getting those answers given to us by the

government, the Ministry, have always been: because the matter is sub judice and

we can't respond to those kinds of questions.

We would argue that is not a strong argument, and I hope that

Your Honour will give serious consideration to the point of privilege put forth

by the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. SPEAKER: If I may say, I think the hon. Member for

Mount Pearl raised an important question relating to the matter of freedom of

speech of members. I point out that, as the hon. Government House Leader says,

that because of the nature of the sub judice convention I would want to have

exact knowledge of what the status of the pleadings were.

I take it from hon. members that there were proceedings. The

question of injunction appears to have come up sometime in the last year and a

half and was resolved before October. Injunctions are preliminary matters in

courts of law. I presume what the hon. member says is correct, but the Member

for Eagle River says as well that there were two matters before the courts

touching on this, and I presume they are civil, or whatever. The problem I have

is that I have to presume, I don't know. I think for me to make an appropriate

ruling I would need to know, because of the points the hon. member raised with

respect to the distinction between civil and criminal. There appears to be a

different test.

The other thing as well, and I think it is an important issue

here, is that most of what you have cited relates to matters in the House

itself, as opposed to matters in committee, and I will also have to consider

what if any direction I am able to give to committees, and as the hon.

Government House Leader says, whether or not the Committee has jurisdiction

solely in these matters and so on.

This is a substantial matter. By Standing Order 15 I am

directed to take into account matters of privileges immediately., However, I

think in fairness to all parties I need to know the exact state of the legal

matters, and I think the rest of it seems fairly clear after that. So if I could

leave it perhaps to the two House Leaders to advise me - I don't think it is

proper for me to go on a fact-finding mission - but if you could take it and

maybe -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that is just a matter of fact. It could

be resolved between the two sides I should say and then from that point, I will

take it and certainly -

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: At that point, I will then take it under

advisement and will advise the House accordingly.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Your Honour.

For our part, of course we consent to your taking whatever

time you need to deal with the matter properly and I am sure my hon. friend

opposite will.

Mr. Speaker, the government is party to these proceedings. I

will get copies of the pleadings and submit them to you and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Fine. My hon. friend can submit them too,

but I will get copies of the pleadings and have them sent to you and Your Honour

can then take such further steps as you deem appropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, and as I say, I think I would need to

know the status of the pleadings at the time that decision was made, which is

really the point on which the question arose and that appears to be October 12

or 13 of this year, so -

MR. WINDSOR: I can give you copies of these. These were

provided by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to me, Your

Honour, in response to a request.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think just sending the copies of the

pleadings would not be entirely helpful, I think we need to know from the court

record where matters stood at that point in time, because as the hon. Member for

Mount Pearl suggests, there may be a different application rule depending on

whether or not the matter is at trial.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, thank you.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to table, in response to a question

yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition, with respect to the planning for

the Strategic Social Plan for the government. I have the list of names of the

planning group. They have been meeting regularly since they were constituted

just about a year ago and they are following a parallel process to what was done

to develop the draft of the Strategic Economic Plan, which will then go out for

public discussion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I want to table the answers to a

couple of questions raised by the hon. the Member for Bonavista South

specifically relating to investigators, questions relating to what numbers of

charges, I think, were fraudulent charges; also, questions relating to whether

there was a code of behaviour for investigators and a couple of questions I

think relating to some other matters. In any event I table the responses.

Petitions

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I should like to present a

petition that has been signed by 1,773 citizens of the Upper Lake Melville area.

Hon. gentlemen and ladies will acknowledge that this is a very sizeable

proportion indeed of the residents of the communities of Happy Valley - Goose

Bay, Sheshatshu, North West River and Mud Lake. I understand that similar

petitions will be coming from other places in Labrador. I suspect my friend from

Menihek has one signed by many people in Western Labrador. I know my friend from

Eagle River and my friend from Torngat Mountains, had petitions -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: - signed by their constituents, all relating

to the same subject.

The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is succinct and it

sets out the position of the petitioners very clearly, so if I may, I shall

simply read it:

To the hon. House of Assembly and Parliament assembled, the

petition of the undersigned residents of the District of Naskaupi, humbly

showeth:

WHEREAS health care services which are a provincial

government responsibility are below the provincial standard in Labrador as

compared to health care services provided on the Island;

WHEREAS Labrador residents are transported by air at

considerable expense to health care facilities in St. Anthony and St. John's for

most surgery and specialist care and treatment; and

WHEREAS Labrador residents have only approximately 250 of the

approximately 800 positions under the Grenfell Regional Health Services Board, -

I add the word 'Board', it is not there but it should be - and obviously are not

receiving their fair share of health care tax dollars from government;

Wherefore, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador begin

immediate development of a Regional Health Care Centre for Labrador residents to

be located in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, and government appoint a health care

board from amongst Labrador residents, separate completely from GRHS Board and

as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

It has been signed as I said, Mr. Speaker, by 1,773 and of

course I have signed it in the appropriate fashion and made the appropriate

certificate in accordance with the rules. If I may say a few words, Mr. Speaker,

both as a member of the ministry and as the Member for Naskaupi. First, Mr.

Speaker, I want to say very clearly that government are determined to improve

health care services in Labrador, as throughout the Province. We acknowledge

readily there are deficiencies and we are trying to address them. Only a fool

would pretend that things are perfect and there are no fools on this side of the

House, Mr. Speaker. There may be one on the other side as the hon. Lady makes

clear.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the governance of health care

institutions in Northern Newfoundland and Labrador is a matter that is very much

current. My colleague the Minister of Health has addressed that in recent days

and if he chooses to speak in this presentation, as I hope he will, I would ask

him to address that matter again. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge the need

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry, the Member for Grand Falls is

being -

MR. SIMMS: Shut up I am not talking to you.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman from Grand

Falls -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: There is nobody talking to you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman for Grand

Falls is being rude as well as dyspeptic. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman from

Grand Falls has sat in this House for seventeen undistinguished years and he now

feels he can interrupt somebody who has the floor. Mr. Speaker, we expect better

than that from somebody who has been Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the hon. member.

Order, please!

On both sides of the House.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me carry on without the

rudeness of the gentleman from Grand Falls, which is one of the reasons he is

where he is and will be there. Mr. Speaker, we in the ministry acknowledge the

need for the new Melville Hospital, have identified it as a priority and intend

to provide it.

Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I can assure all

of those who signed the petition, and anybody else who lives in Labrador, that

there views will be taken into the balance in coming to this decision. We are

committed to consultation and again I will ask my friend the Health Minister to

address it. I recently met - together with two of my colleagues - with a group

in Labrador West to talk about governance. The committee representing the

Jackman Hospital Board - they subsequently sent me a brief, or they gave us a

brief. I believe my friend from Menihek has seen a copy of it. It is a very good

brief. We consult widely and this petition, Sir, is part of the process and I

have no doubt will make a substantive contribution to it.

Thank you, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for, Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The original name of course of the electoral district was

Labrador West. So the Speaker can be forgiven for making that slip of the

tongue.

Mr. Speaker, I speak in support -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Maybe, maybe. Small `l' Liberal, it won't be

a capital `L' Liberal coming from Western Labrador for many, many years to come

as an elected representative here in the Provincial Assembly, I don't think.

But anyway, Mr. Speaker, speaking in support of this petition

that was signed by some 1700 residents of the electoral district of Naskaupi,

mainly residents of Happy Valley - Goose Bay, Sheshatshu, North West River and

Mud Lake. Mr. Speaker, I support the petition and as the Government House Leader

has suggested, the residents of Western Labrador - the residents of Labrador

City and Wabush - they too have requested that a petition be presented in this

House on the very same issue. I will be presenting that particular petition but

all the residents of Labrador are very concerned about the reform of the health

care system that is occurring throughout the Province and more specifically, in

Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

The prayer of this particular petition suggests that one of

the things that should be done, Mr. Speaker, is that a recognition be given to

the amount of the economic package that health care pertains to, be considered,

Mr. Speaker, in other words, along with health care. While we must be concerned

about the quality of the health care that is being delivered to the people, the

people of Western Labrador also recognize - or the people that signed this

particular petition recognize that it is an economic input to the community

derived from having health care facilities located within certain jurisdictions,

Mr. Speaker.

Witness what is occurring here in the employment levels in

St. John's because of the regional nature of the services provided by the

Capital City, whether it be health care, education, policing or whatever, Mr.

Speaker. So that is what some of the residents of Naskaupi that signed this

particular petition were concerned about, the economic accrual that could

benefit the people of Labrador. The people who will be receiving the medical

care that is necessary, they also want the economic benefits that accrue from

it,

whereas now they see the economic benefits being spun off onto the Island

portion of the Province, i.e. St. Anthony, Mr. Speaker.

People in my particular district, I would think, also think

in a very similar fashion. They are also very concerned, in my district, with

the amount of consultation that has been taking place, and they want to have

more consultation. I understand that the hon. the Government House Leader did

meet with representatives from the hospital and it was a very frank and open

discussion, and it was a good meeting. I understand from the other people who

attended the meeting that they were pleased with it also.

Mr. Speaker, I just today had a discussion with some of the

media in Western Labrador with regard to when the Department of Health is going

to move on the reorganization of the health care in Labrador. They would like to

see this issue resolved, and they are very concerned about the quality of health

care - not just the economic accrual to the area, but how the quality of health

care is going to be improved in Labrador, because we definitely do not want to

see - while the administration is important, the quality of health care is what

we must ensure has to be improved.

So I support the petition and I look forward to the minister

urging his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Health, to move on this

particular matter and ensure that the residents of Labrador get fair treatment

and consideration when they talk about delivery of government services to

Labrador people.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue here is governance of the health care system in

Labrador, and is part of a province-wide discussion that is ongoing as to how

best to govern our very complex health care system in the Province, with its

twenty-five or so hospital boards, and its twenty-five or so nursing home

boards, and its eighty-odd personal care homes, and its multitude of

organizations.

We are looking at all of this, but in the reorganization of

hospitals and nursing homes we set out a pattern, and the pattern is fairly

clear. We wanted to do St. John's and get it over with first because of the

rather large obstacles that might be here. We are at that. We have decided to

set up one board to govern the health care institutions in St. John's, which

also provide tertiary care services to other parts of the Province.

We have decided to set up two boards in Central Newfoundland.

Our next move is to another area which desperately needs attention, and that is

the eastern region. We have had proposals from the western region of the Island,

and our plan is to then hold further discussions in Labrador and the rest of the

northern region, which includes the northern part of the Northern Peninsula.

I have had very preliminary meetings with people in Labrador

during my visits to the hospitals there, and discussions with boards in Labrador

West, and officials and other people in the Goose Bay area and in St. Anthony. I

realize the issues that are there, but I certainly want to hold further

discussions at the appropriate time, and the appropriate time will be probably

early winter.

That is the way it looks at the moment, so we are looking

forward very much to holding these discussions and receiving input from the

people of Labrador on this point.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we go any further, I

move that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we had originally arrived at an

order in which we would ask the House to address bills, but my friend from

Ferryland, who speaks for the Opposition on health matters, I understand, has

run into some health problems himself. I hope he is better at solving these than

he is at some others, so we will certainly agree to accommodate the hon.

gentlemen opposite.

I will suggest that we first deal in the order with Bill No.

38, which is Order 23; Bill No. 40, which is Order 24; and Bill No. 35, which is

Order 26. When that has been dealt with by then my friend for Grand Bank and I

will have met behind Your Chair, Sir, and we shall then either do the three

bills that are health related or we shall ask the House to address a number of

the Committee stages. Members of the Opposition may want to be here because we

will deal with these amendments that went through the Government Services

Committee today. We will be happy to address those here.

Before we go on though, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if you would

first call Motions 1 and 2. When they are disposed of would you be good enough

please to call Bill 38, Order 23, for a second reading debate.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act," carried. (Bill No. 58)

On motion, Bill No. 58 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And

Safety Act," carried. (Bill No. 59)

On motion, Bill No. 59 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 23.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Youth

Advisory Council Act". (Bill No. 38)

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is simply a minor bit

of house keeping. The Youth Advisory Council has not been receiving any funding

for a number of years and for all intents and purposes it has become inactive,

so it is rather useless to have the Act on the book if it is no longer being

used. The Bill is very self-explanatory. I move second reading.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just have a few comments on

the Bill. I think it is regrettable that the Youth Advisory Council has become

inactive. I think that it calls into question the government's commitment to

youth. I do believe that we have to seek every opportunity we can have to

involve youth in the governance of youth affairs. At a time when there are

profound economic and social changes occurring in Newfoundland society I do

believe that we should be doing more to find ways in which we can access

programs that will permit youth to be involved in youth related affairs.

The message that this repeal gives to the young people of

this Province is that they don't seem to matter, that they don't have a voice,

and in a way this repeal is the final insult that comes after some years of

inactivity on behalf of the Youth Advisory Council. Certainly it is contrary to

the thrust and to the theme of the Royal Commission on Education where we have

Our Children, Our Future . In that connection we should make a commitment

that we should find ways in which we can access the talents that our young

people have.

For example, in the City of Mount Pearl, where I served as

mayor for some years, we have a youth advisory council that functions quite well

there. The members are elected from among their peers, an open election

conducted with notice. Many of these young people go to various civic events.

They advise the council on youth related activities and they represent the voice

of youth on recreation matters. These are leadership roles in the community and

certainly in this particular case we find that the involvement of these young

people adds an extra dimension to the quality of life that the people of Mount

Pearl enjoy. They actively participate in running the youth centres, the Reid

Community Centre, the Kenmount Park Neighbourhood Centre, just to name two.

In our school system we have youth councils and when we talk

about youth councils we talk about democracy, we talk about involvement, we talk

about role models. These are all roles and avenues where young people can show

examples to their peers. A very important role in the school system is that of

peer counselling, and certainly if we were to look at the Youth Advisory

Council, and look at its potential for peer counselling alone, this would be a

good reason why we should keep it going.

We all know that each year the provincial government receives

approximately $80 million from its taxes on alcohol but in this particular case

we find that none of that money, or very little of it, is used to help those

young people who have alcohol and drug dependency problems, and if there is one

great, tremendous, overwhelming problem in schools today, particularly senior

high schools and other institutions where you find great numbers of young

people, is the problem of alcohol. We have to encourage young people to continue

to be volunteers in the community. We have to find ways in which we can access

their talents, and by not activating the Youth Advisory Council for some years

indicates a change of commitment. You see, Mr. Speaker, the true spirit of youth

lies in the respect we have for our children. In this particular case children

deserve involvement, they deserve a chance to participate, and perhaps we should

not be communicating that we do not really care about their voice or their

opinion by simply putting in place institutions like the Youth Advisory Council

and then not giving it the support it needs to make it function properly.

Mr. Speaker, for the young people of this Province the lack

of action in the Youth Advisory Council is a regressive step, and at a time when

young people are looking for ways in which they can be positively and actively

involved in their communities we have to find more ways not to close off avenues

of participation.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I thought the minister was going to give

some explanation to the member.

MS. VERGE: He is getting up to bow.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I just want to make a few comments

because this Act To Repeal The Youth Advisory Council is most regressive, as the

Member for Mount Pearl said. It is quite ironic for me, I guess, to be here

today to speak on

An Act To Repeal The Youth Advisory Council Act, being a

former Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth, a department that had the

Youth Services Division, a very positive pro-active division for youth in this

Province. Every day when I was Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth I was

doing something positive for some group or youth organization throughout the

Province. I remember very well serving in the government benches as a minister

and the questions and attacks that used to come, particularly from the Member

for Stephenville at that time who was the critic for that department. It is too

bad he is not here today. I do not see him here. Because almost every week that

member would be up in his place talking about youth unemployment, talking about

the need for more dollars to fund youth organizations and agencies throughout

the Province, and what a strong advocate he was of the Youth Advisory Council.

The other member back in those days who used to rise very

regularly to speak in support of youth was the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology. Almost every second day the same line. There were two members in the

Opposition at that time who consistently talked about the needs of youth in our

Province, and how that terrible government of the day was not doing enough for

youth in our Province.

I say, Mr. Speaker, how ironic, and how regrettable, that the

minister, when I asked him, when he got up to introduce the Bill, I asked him

when he said: funds have been cut to the Youth Advisory Council now for a number

of years. I said to the minister: how many years ago was it that funding to the

Youth Advisory Council was cut? As a matter of fact, I think the Member for

Mount Pearl might be very right, that in 1989, in the first Budget, when this

Party came to power -

MS. VERGE: They had a surplus on current account.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, a $5 or $10 million surplus they

doctored the books to show, as we now know. At the same time, they cut funding

to the Youth Advisory Council, and here we have the minister today now coming in

here with

An Act To Repeal The Youth Advisory Council Act.

I just say those few words just to refresh the memories of

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who sat in the Opposition

benches in those days, and to refresh the memory of the Member for Fogo, who

used to so loudly applaud his colleagues, the Members for Stephenville and St.

Barbe, and the Minister of Social Services, who was then in Opposition, and of

course the Minister of Education himself. He was there. How concerned they were

then for youth in this Province, how the hundreds of thousands of dollars that

the then-government budgeted to youth was not enough.

Now what have they done? They've given youth the boot. Youth

unemployment in the Province is at an all-time high. Unemployment in the

Province - my God, what was the figure? It was so frightening it....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Over 60 per cent.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sixty per cent unemployed in the

Province. But now everything is alright. It is quite alright now to do away with

the Youth Advisory Council, to shut down the youth services division. Quite

alright. How the tune has changed, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to make those few remarks because as minister

of the day at the time I can remember so well the attacks from members opposite

when they were the Opposition, how we weren't doing enough for youth. At those

times we were going through hard financial times as well. But here we are now

repealing the Youth Advisory Council Act. I just wanted to make those remarks to

put them on the public record, to just remind members opposite how much they

change when they become the government.

As I said today on the public airwaves of the Province, in

reaction to what the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said yesterday,

that how Liberals say one thing during an election campaign and do just the

opposite once they are elected. That means all Liberals. They preach one thing

during an election campaign, but give them a month under their belt in power and

they go in the opposite direction. They are doing the same thing now with the

youth of the Province, I say.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): The hon. the Minister of Education

if he speaks now will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members for

the stimulating debate, for the fantastic, overwhelming recommendations that

have come from the other side of the House. I wish to assure them that all of

their suggestions and all of their moaning and groaning and complaining, all of

that, will be taken into consideration.

I want to especially thank the hon. Member for Waterford -

Kenmount for giving us a history lesson in the way he ran the council in Mount

Pearl. That is extremely relevant to this Bill and I would certainly make

arrangement for the hon. member, if he so wished, to maybe teach several

seminars, so that all members of this House

can learn about the great and noble way that he ran the City

of Mount Pearl when he was there as the mayor, and I would certainly like to

have him take advantage of signing up in advance so that I can attend these

seminars.

The hon. Member for Grand Bank gets up and obviously confuses

the Youth Advisory Council with the Division of Youth Services in the Department

of Education - two totally different things, Mr. Speaker. Grants are still being

given out left, right and centre. All over this Province youth associations are

receiving funding. As a matter of fact, I just signed a letter to someone -

where was that - in Upper Island Cove, I believe -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: Is that your district?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. DECKER: Just signed one for Upper Island Cove,

telling them that a grant has been approved for the Boys and Girls Club. So

every day when I am sitting here, studiously going over my affairs, I am signing

letters to the various youth organizations throughout the Province, advising

them that grants have been made available - $1,000; $2,000; in some case

$15,000. We do not have to take second place to anyone when it comes to caring

for the youth of this Province, Mr. Speaker. I will tell the hon. member that,

and I will advise him not to get confused with the Youth Advisory Council and

the Division of Youth Services in the Department of Education.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of other things I could say, but

I will spare the Opposition the embarrassment as to getting into all the reasons

why we cannot make more money available to the youth. I will spare them today. I

happen to be in a good mood.

Having said these few words, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Youth Advisory

Council Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 38)

AN HON. MEMBER: Order 24, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal Certain

Obsolete And Spent Statutes". (Bill No. 40)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is going to bring the Opposition to their feet when I am

finished. I am glad to see my hon. friend from St. John's East back in the House

of Assembly, because after I spend a few minutes explaining this Bill he is

going to be caught up for the rest of the afternoon in this particular Bill.

Bill No. 40,

An Act To Repeal Certain Obsolete And Spent

Statutes - it is complicated, and difficult to understand, but I am sure the

hon. the Member for St. John's East will absorb it as we go along.

What it is, Mr. Speaker, is just basically house cleaning on

this particular Bill. There were a number of committees, corporations, set up

during the 1960's when they were building different hospitals around the

Province. For example, Bell Island Hospital Corporation Limited set up in 1963,

BLC Building Corporation Limited, 1965, the Grace Hospital Extension, Northern

Hospitals Building Corporation Limited, 1963 and so on. The St. John's Infirmary

Building Corporation Limited was set up in 1963 also. All of these particular

corporations were set up through the fund-raising for these particular bills.

These buildings have been built back in the sixties. The

mortgages have been paid off, and now we are asking permission to repeal all of

these pieces of legislation.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is just basically house cleaning

in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: What I cannot understand is why the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation allowed his name to be printed on this

Bill under the heading, under the label `obsolete and spent'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, that label would have fit

perfectly the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: But the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, while he has been rather silent lately, when he was on the back

bench, was outspoken and feisty. He was speaking out from one end of the

Province to the other on behalf of the downtrodden fisherpersons. When he came

to the House of Assembly and served in Opposition, he was on his feet every day

lambasting the government, speaking up for the oppressed young offenders. Now,

Mr. Speaker, he has been reduced to admitting defeat and calling himself

'obsolete and spent'. What a downfall, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. EFFORD: There goes my weekend in Corner Brook. There

goes all my dreams, my plans and my fantasies all gone down the drain. I will

only ask the hon. Member for Humber East one thing, to wear your red dress

tomorrow night at the party and I will be there. I will be there with you. Total

disappointment - I am soon going to be middle aged, total disappointment. I

can't take this.

Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, I won't take up any more time in this

hon. House. I admit to saying that. The next time I will bring in some better

information but I do move second reading on this Bill.

On motion, a Bill, "An Act To Repeal Certain Obsolete and

Spent Statutes," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the

Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 40).

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

MR. DECKER: Order 26, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Did I understand the hon. Minister of

Education, Order 26?

MR. DECKER: Order 26, Bill No. 35.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Department of Social Services Act". (Bill No. 35)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill No. 35, "An Act To Amend The Department of Social

Services Act." Mr. Speaker, this Bill deals solely with the establishment and

operation of a single appeal board for all matters which fall under the

legislative responsibility of the Department of Social Services. I think up to

this point in time maybe there are three boards; The Social Assistance Appeal

Board, the Rehab Appeal Board and the Adoptions Appeal Board. The effect of this

act is to have one appeal board. There will be future legislation which will put

into effect legislation which will bring in other appeals but they will all come

under this appeal board and I am talking about the child welfare, particularly.

All of these things, under the Department of Social Services, will fall within

the one appeal board.

Everything here is pretty much the same as it is under the

previous act with the exception of a couple of amendments here and there which

are there to enhance and strengthen the act. We think, Mr. Speaker, by having

one board that it is going to make things more cost efficient and is also going

to be more effective. It is going to result in a consistency of decision making.

So we think one board is going to be very efficient and very effective. We will

leave it at that for now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to respond to the hon. minister's bill - Bill

No. 35. As the Social Services critic, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that most of

the people on the other side of this hon. House should hang their heads in shame

and be particularly displeased with the number of people we are finding in this

Province on social services today. The cost of social assistance will exceed

Budget estimates by about $15.8 million. The cost will go to approximately $191

million from estimates of $175 million. In 1989, Mr. Speaker, this Province

spent $113 million on social assistance and just four years later the cost is up

by nearly 70 per cent. If we look at the cost of benefits that social services

recipients are getting, we will find there is not much of an increase, certainly

not enough to reflect the 70 per cent increase, but the cost is certainly borne

by more people on the social assistance rolls. In 1989 we had fewer than 45,000

people receiving assistance compared to 68,000 as of April this year. More and

more of our young people, Mr. Speaker, are finding themselves on social

assistance. I know of cases where people are graduating from post-secondary

institutions, university, the Cabot Institute, coming out owing $20,000 and

$30,000 and finding themselves on the social assistance rolls.

Child poverty in the Province, Mr. Speaker, is 25 per cent

higher than the national average, mainly because of high unemployment insurance

rates and low family income. The Department of Social Services caseloads have

doubled and, in some cases, tripled the recommended levels, and it has been

suggested in a recent study by the Child Welfare League of America - and I stand

to be corrected on this, but I think I am correct in saying that they suggest

something like 163 more child welfare staff are needed now in this Province. The

number of child protection referrals, Mr. Speaker, have increased by 734 per

cent in just nine years, from 544 in 1984 to 4,538 in 1992. I might add that the

large increase in referrals has not been accompanied by an increase in treatment

for children and their families. I understand that the Department of Social

Services has a policy manual that is considered to be a highly confidential

internal document. Mr. Speaker, I thought if government departments had a policy

then we should be letting other people know what our policies are and let them

guide themselves accordingly. I phoned the office of the Department of Social

Services several times trying to get hold of the interdepartmental manual and I

am told it is not to be given out, it is highly confidential and should stay in

that particular office.

The need for more counselling services is evident, Mr.

Speaker, rather than passing out social assistance cheques. In conversation one

day, with a social services worker in my district, when I brought forward the

concern of a constituent, I was surprised to hear the social services worker

reply: `We are not going to give this particular individual any more jobs

because he doesn't know how to spend his money - he wastes his money.' Mr.

Speaker, that is a prime example of somebody needing counselling. I think those

people should not be pushed aside because they don't know the value of money, or

know how to keep a budget. That is no reason why we should deprive them of a job

and say we are going to turn our backs on them and leave them on the social

services rolls forever and a day.

I understand, a couple of weeks ago - I commend the minister

for this, for going out and meeting with the staff. I understand he took a trip

across the P