December 6, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 46

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I would like to acknowledge the passing of a very well-known and

highly respected health care provider and well-known member of the medical

community, Dr. John Ross. Dr. Ross passed away on Friday and his funeral is

being held this afternoon.

Dr. John Ross was a physician who practiced in several rural areas of our

Province - Bonne Bay, Port aux Basques and Placentia. He was a primary care

physician, very thorough and most professional. He was an excellent role model -

not only to physicians but to all health care professionals. He always put

himself at the disposal of others. He was also a great friend of the many nurses

with whom he worked over the years. Up to the time of his illness, he taught and

provided clinical practice for our new nurse practitioners in the Nurse

Practitioner Program.

Dr. Ross was a great teacher and a great mentor, having spent many years at

Memorial University's Medical School and in the Family Practice Unit. He was

also a recipient of the Order of Canada. Rex Murphy recently described Dr. Ross

as a gift to his profession. He will be missed.

Dr. Ross will be remembered for his work in the establishment of the first

Community Health Center in our city - on Shea Heights. He was also involved in

the Peace Movement. He had several experiences working in Africa and was

well-known around the world.

Dr. Ross never retired, as his illness came only a few weeks ago and a cure

was not to be.

We extend our sincere sympathy to Mrs. Ross, his daughter and his two sons,

at this very difficult time, as we acknowledge this great loss and remember the

immense contribution that Dr. Ross made to the health and well-being of the

people of our Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, on this side of the House would like to join with the minister in

acknowledging the contributions of a person who has made a great contribution to

our Province not only in the field of the practice of medicine but, as the

minister alluded to, as a teacher, an instructor, and being innovative in

bringing a Community Health Center here - the first in the Province. We, too,

offer our sincere condolences to the family during this difficult time.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to join with the Minister of Health and the Opposition House

Leader in paying tribute to Dr. John Ross, whose contribution to this Province

is well respected, particularly in his work in providing the leadership that

has, I think, been responsible in many ways for the terrific reputation of the

Family Practice Unit at the Memorial University School of Medicine, and also the

work in establishing the clinic on Shea Heights, where I worked in the early

1970s. The importance of that clinic to the community is very well-known and

highly regarded, and certainly his work as well in international work on

governmental organizations and the peace movement made him very well-known and

very well respected in the Province. We join in expressing our condolences to

the family and the community.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with regret that I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Leslie Russell

Thoms, the Province's High Sheriff and the former MHA for Grand Bank, who

passed away December 5 at the age of sixty-one.

Mr. Thoms, or Les, as people knew him, served the public of Newfoundland and

Labrador with distinction throughout his career.

Born in Garnish on March 7, 1938, Mr. Thoms taught at St. Chad's in

Bonavista Bay in 1953-1954 and Gander Collegiate in 1956-1957. He then returned

to university and graduated from Memorial with a B.A. and B.A. (Ed) in 1962 and

Dalhousie Law School in 1965.

After graduation from Dalhousie, Mr. Thoms practiced law in St. John's,

becoming the senior partner in the law firm of Thoms, Fowler, Rowe and Barry.

In 1979. he ran for the House of Assembly and was elected as the Liberal

Member for Grand Bank where he served as Justice critic. He was also on several

committees, including the House of Assembly's Select Committee for the

Adoption of a New Provincial Flag and the Select Committee on Resource

Development.

In 1982, he returned to private practice until 1984 when he joined the

Department of Justice as a Senior Solicitor.

On March 22, 1988, he was appointed High Sheriff of Newfoundland, an office

that is responsible for implementing orders and judgements of the Supreme Court,

processing the execution of judgements, assisting the court in service of

process and administration of jury duty. The office has, more recently, assumed

a responsibility for court security; which, I might add, was an initiative of

Mr. Thoms.

Mr. Thoms was an active member of the community. He is a former Director of

the John Howard Society and was a member of Memorial University's Board of

Regents. He is also a former President of the Newfoundland Branch of the

Canadian Red Cross. More recently, he was active with both the Celtic Minor and

Junior Hockey Association.

Mr. Thoms spent most of his working life involved in serving the public of

Newfoundland and Labrador. As a lawyer in private practice, as an elected

official, and as a government solicitor and High Sheriff, Mr. Thoms dedicated

himself to the administration of Justice in this Province. He will be missed by

all in the department and his memory will serve as an excellent example for his

successor.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask all Members of the House to join

with the government and the Department of Justice in expressing sincere

condolences to Mr. Thoms' wife, Andree, and his four children, Michelle,

Stefan, Marc and Eric.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, on this side of the House, join with the Minister of Justice and Attorney

General in expressing, certainly, our sympathy and condolences to the family of

the late Les Thoms. As a member of the Law Society, I obviously knew Mr. Thoms

and had the occasion to work with him from time to time during his role as a

High Sheriff.

I think it is interesting to note that he was appointed as High Sheriff at

the time when my brother served as Minister of Justice and Attorney General for

the Province. I think, therefore, the government of the day recognized the

special skills and talents of Mr. Thoms in appointing him to that particular

position. I know Les worked very closely on important legislation last year,

known as the Judgement Enforcement Act, and that particular office, the office

of the High Sheriff, worked diligently and obviously

working towards the successful conclusion of that particular piece of

legislation passing through this House of Assembly. I know Mr. Thoms as well

worked hard in modernizing the Sheriff's office as we understand it today.

On behalf of the members of this side of the House, we certainly extend our

condolences to his wife Andree and children, Michelle, Stefan, Marc and Eric.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the words of the Minister of Justice and the Member for St.

John's East in expressing condolences to Mr. Thoms' family. Mr. Thoms is

well known, of course, in the Province as a former member of this House. He did

a great deal in the last number of years, since 1988, in bringing about

significant changes in the operations of the court system, particularly with

respect to juries, brought many of the operations of the Judgement Enforcement

Act into play and took over important responsib ilities. It

is a very great loss to the legal profession and to the court in his work. He

was known personally to me and many people as a hard working individual who

believed in the system of justice that we have and who did his best to improve

it and make it work for all.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make this statement this afternoon,

first of all as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

Ten years ago today, fourteen young women in Montreal were murdered because

they were women. This tragic event occurred at Montreal's cole Polytechnique

when a young man

entered the school, separated men from women, and opened fire on the women

because, he said, he believed they were feminists. This terrible tragedy

traumatized this country.

Since then, each December 6 Canadians have stopped to reflect on the tragic

loss of the lives of these fourteen young women and to consider what actions

might be taken to end violence against women. I wish I could say that this

senseless act was an isolated event. Sadly, that is not the case.

Violence against women in Canada did not begin with the Montreal massacre and

it did not end there either. Thousands of women and children across this country

have been victims of violence in the years since that tragedy. Today too many

women in Newfoundland and Labrador, like others across the country, continue to

live in the shadow of violence and abuse.

Violence against women occurs all too frequently. It continues to have tragic

consequences for women's lives and significant social and economic costs.

What can we do about this? One thing we must do is to become more aware of

this issue. We must get involved in organizing or supporting anti-violence

campaigns and initiatives. We must acknowledge other forms of family and

societal violence. Violence affects us all. We all have a responsibility to

address it.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has long recognized the

importance of playing a leadership role in working to address issues of violence

in Newfoundland and Labrador. Nearly five years ago government announced that it

would be working with community based groups to implement an action plan for

violence prevention in this Province.

Under the auspices of this Provincial Strategy Against Violence we have

conducted research, produced publications, and undertaken training programs all

aimed at violence prevention and at improving services. We are now exploring how

this important work can continue to be carried out.

This government is committed to ensuring that our communities are safe and to

addressing the inequalities that enable women to become targets of violent

crime.

Let us take a moment to remember the fourteen young women who were murdered

in Montreal ten years ago and the thirteen other people wounded during that

event. Let us remember, too, the women in Newfoundland and Labrador who have

also been murdered and wounded. Let us remember their loved ones, and let us

consider what we might all do to try and prevent such senseless tragedy in the

future.

I have asked the Page to pass out to all of us the rose button which we all

use to commemorate this day and to remember the victims and call for action to

change.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for providing me with a copy of her statement. Another

December is upon us and we are surrounded by the lights and the trappings of the

season. When we unpack our ornaments, many of us find pictures of our children

with Santa Claus and we look back on memories of Christmas past. There are other

families this year and every year for the past ten years who do not hold such

fond memories of December. They are the families of Genevieve Bergeron, Hlne

Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barb ara Daigneault, Anne-Marie

Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Marie Klueznick, Maryese Laganiere, Maryse

Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michele Richard, Annie St. Arneault,

and Annie Turcotte.

The right of those families and those young women to celebrate another

festive season or to live another day was abruptly and violently snatched from

them. Today, as we have on the anniversary of their deaths for the past ten

years, we remember and pay tribute to them because the circumstances surrounding

their deaths are so profound we are jolted, and each year we relive the horror.

We will never forget but, as the minister said, violence against women in Canada

did not begin with the Montreal massacre and it did not end there either.

As we remember these fourteen young women, let us keep uppermost in our minds

that violence continues to be a major part of the lives of many of the women

among us, and because in many cases they suffer in silence and shame we are not

aware of their plight. When their story is brought to light, when it is made

public, it does not always receive the attention of a mass murder because it

does not appear to be as profound, but the suffering of the women who live in

violence is profound. They are our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, our

step-daughters, our aunts, nieces, et cetera.

We have the power and the duty here in this Legislature to make laws, approve

budgets and set policy directions that have a tremendous impact on the lives of

all people in our society. We make budgetary decisions on policing, on womens'

shelters, on public education and on social support programs. We create the laws

that can either empower women or leave them vulnerable. There is a broadly based

and growing recognition among the general public we represent, that we are not

doing enough to halt the sc ourge of violence against

women. It is our duty, as legislators, to do something about it. When we

acknowledge that violence towards women is still happening, and when we make a

vow to make that violence end, we can perhaps take comfort that those who have

died in violence have not died in vain.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is indeed a dark day in our country's history, when we remember what

happened on December 6 in Montreal. I knew one of the young women who was in the

class when this took place, and the effect it had on her and her family in the

couple of years that proceeded that. Unfortunately, I had the occasion to attend

her funeral some five years later when she was killed in the mining industry.

I think it is important, because it is all too common these days to read the

paper or hear the news about violent crimes being committed against women simply

because of the fact they are women, not for any other reason. I think it is

important to support the groups in our country and in our communities, the

advocacy groups who are fighting to put a stop to this. It is, Mr. Speaker,

important for us to remember this date, but after we remember, it is equally

important that we continue to work to wipe out violence in our society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker,

I rise to join with my colleagues who have already spoken on this day which

commemorates indeed a horrible day in Canada, and one which manifests, in a

profound way, violence which is routinely directed against women in our country.

I rise because it occurs to me, sitting here, that the issue of which we speak

is not a women's issue. It is an issue for women in the sense that women find

themselves the target of violent acts, intimidation, too often in our society.

The reality is, it is an issue for the whole community,

and indeed it is men within our community who overwhelmingly are the proponents

of the violence which has been directed against women.

Mr. Speaker, as we reflect upon the kind of actions that we may take as a

society, both in the context of legislation mentioned by my colleague opposite,

and the context of programs, support programs and services, mentioned by the

minister who has just spoken, as we reflect upon the human tragedy associated

with violence against women mentioned by all three speakers, let us too reflect

- and perhaps this is a good time - upon the gratuitous violence in our society

today. It has crossed my mind very often recently, as the father of young sons,

that we have turned violence into a form of entertainment in our society;

whether it is our video games and the preponderance of new technologies offering

ways to provide for violent outcomes to competition over a video machine;

whether it is the leading form of entertainment on our cable television

networks, dwarfing all other competitive programming, the WWF and the other

wrestling networks; whether it is the formula for Hollywood-based hit movies,

all of whi ch require the requisite

degree of gratuitous violence in death, all of these, I believe, give a degree

of acceptance of violence as a means of solving problems or as a means of

solving disputes or giving expression to one's feelings. Nothing could be

further from the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to say that the violence that too often takes hold

of our community begins in one form or another, or is nurtured in one form or

another, in our own homes.

My call today, in joining with my colleagues who have already spoken, is to

call upon each of us, not just in this House but beyond this House, in this

Province, to take up our role and our responsibility as parents, as guardians,

and as members of the community, to ensure that there truly is dialogue where we

live about violence, about the way in which it manifests itself, and about the

kind of materials available to our children, the kind of things that shape their

view of how to resolve conflicts in this society.

I join with all of those who have again expressed their condolences - again,

ten years later - to the families of those young women who died in Montreal.

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I speak now as Minister of Human Resources and

Employment. I am very pleased to share with members today the latest labour

force statistics for Newfoundland and Labrador. These numbers were released this

past Friday by Statistics Canada, and are very encouraging for this Province.

Last month, Newfoundland and Labrador set a new record for a monthly

employment rate. For the month of November, the number of people employed in the

Province rose to 210,500. This is the highest employment rate for the month of

November in the Province's history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Our employment rate reached an impressive high thanks to the

addition of 8,000 new jobs since November of 1998. More importantly, these new

jobs were almost all in full-time employment.

The labour force survey also showed other impressive gains in our provincial

labour market. Since this time last year, our unemployment rate dropped by 2.1

percentage points. This bring the Province's unemployment rate to 14.6 per

cent, the largest decline of any province and the lowest rate for this Province

since the early 1990s.

It is important to mention that these latest gains have come from a variety

of areas. Employment growth for the month of November was widespread. It covered

all four labour force regions in the Province. In addition, gains were made by

important members of our labour force, such as youth, who saw the unemployment

rate for youth decrease in the order of approximately 4.6 percentage points.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador believe these numbers reflect a

positive trend of economic growth in our Province; however, while we certainly

want to recognize the strides we have made, we also understand that we must

continue to work together to ensure that this momentum continues.

Recognizing our accomplishments helps to strengthen confidence in our

Province's future and fosters a renewed optimism in our economy.

In the first eleven months of 1999 some 10,300 new jobs have been created,

bringing the total number of new jobs added to the economy in just thirty-five

months to 18,500, a gain of nearly 10 per cent. These numbers are concrete

evidence that employment is continuing to grow in this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are only too delighted to see tremendous growth in jobs and employment in

our Province and we hope there will be greater growth in the future. You have to

look at statistics. You have to look at it and analyze statistics on the basic

types of jobs: if they are casual, and whether they are minimum wage jobs. You

have to remember also that in our Province we have been victims of a decimation

of an Employment Insurance program that has driven people out of our Province

and has driven people out of the workforce. They no longer become a statistic,

and do not figure in the negative percentages that were evident before.

Out-migration has not stopped in our Province, I might add. It is just as

strong this year as it was last year. Thank God, there are a few more people who

came back at the short effects.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Out-migration numbers are the same. The net out-migration,

I might say to the minister. The minister stood in this House a year and a half

year ago and told about all the growth in the fishing industry in the spring of

the year. We said: Because the crab season opened early. Wait for August, I

said, when the crab is processed, and the next years. Figures go up and down in

line with employment growths, productivity in the fishing industry, a delay of

winter coming in, a longer construction season. They shift. There are shifting

amounts here, from one month to another and from various points, statistics can

tell you different things, I say, Mr. Speaker. The bottom line is the people on

the Northern Peninsula do not think there is greater employment. The people in

Trepassey do not think it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and the people in rural Newfoundland today do not think

there is greater employment in our Province because there is not, Mr. Speaker..

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before members opposite get too excited about their version of the good news,

they should recognize that the decrease in unemployment in Newfoundland of 11

per cent year over year from 1998 to 1999 was matched by a 14 per cent decrease

in Canada wide. We are not keeping pace with the rest of the country in the

creation of jobs, despite the numbers. If there were 10,000 new jobs created in

the last nine months, how come there are only 4,000 more people employed than

there were this time last year? Obviously, while some jobs are coming on there

are other jobs being replaced. The trend is that the decent paying full-time

jobs in the construction and manufacturing sector are going down and the number

of part-time, low-paying jobs in the service sector is going up -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - 70 per cent of which are occupied by women, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize for not having a written statement to provide, but I did want to

just take a minute to provide an update with respect to meetings that were held

on the weekend in Toronto. The meetings were held over a couple of days. We had

an opportunity to discuss a range of issues that were addressed and

clarifications provided, in advance of a board meeting being held by Inco's

board today. I just wanted to point out again, in case there is any lack of

clarity, that we do not have a formal proposal f rom Inco,

we do not have the basis for a return to formal negotiations, but we are glad to

wait to hear from them regarding their plans to firmly commit to full processing

to a nickel-metal product will full and fair benefits for Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I was waiting with baited breath all weekend,

reading The Globe and Mail ,

because we have become so accustomed to news on Voisey's Bay being dropped in

the national media, in The Globe and Mail

or The Wall Street Journal or somewhere else. It is refreshing to

hear the minister stand and provide some information, although very little.

Premier, I am glad you are back, because last week he answered nothing and it

will give me the opportunity this week to ask you directly, sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would agree with the Leader of the Opposition if the Minister of Mines and

Energy had actually said something here today. It is time that he told the

people of this Province how much of this ore Inco intends to ship outside of the

Province before it starts processing. When we hear him answering questions like

that, we might know something about what is going on.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker,

I would like to respond today to comments attributed to Quebec Premier Lucien

Bouchard regarding the Province's request to the federal government to legally

change the name of the Province of Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Members will recall that a resolution to amend Term 1 of the Terms of Union

to reflect the new name of the Province was passed on April 29 of this year, and

it was unanimously adopted in this House. The federal government is moving at

the request of this Province to introduce that resolution for confirmation by

the House of Commons and by the Senate. This is absolutely nothing new. Indeed,

the request is eight months old and it is certainly not a provocation by anyone.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Quebec have

developed a good working relationship over the last several years, specifically

in relation to the Labrador Hydro Project.

We have kept the Government of Quebec apprised of the status of the name

change request. In fact, I spoke again this morning to Premier Bouchard to

question him regarding the headlines in several of the national newspapers. Mr.

Bouchard has assured me, and I sought such assurance, that it is not Quebec's

intention to commence any kind of legal action against anyone regarding the

proposed name change.

It is not in anyone's interest to attempt to create a situation or a

conflict that does not exist.

Both provinces have recognized the existing borders in recent agreements.

Specifically, I signed on behalf of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,

and I signed with that title, a Labour Market Mobility Agreement with the

Government of Quebec, which was signed by Premier Bouchard on April 24, 1998. I

repeat: both the Premier of Quebec and the Premier of this Province signed a

formal document, an agreement, in which the name of this Province was entitled

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, on April 24.

I have spoken with federal officials and I have been assured again today that

this Province's request to enact the name change will proceed in an

expeditious manner.

The resolution passed by the House of Assembly and now being considered by

the federal government would simply legalize what has been the boundary of this

Province as confirmed by the British Privy Council decision of 1927 and give an

appropriate legal name to this Province.

To conclude, Labrador has been an integral part of this Province all

throughout our history. It is only right and proper that the contribution of

this region of our Province be acknowledged in our official name. This is not a

matter of dispute in this House nor, to the best of my knowledge, is it a matter

of dispute within the federal government or certainly within the Government of

Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable when matters which are designed to provoke

nobody but simply to fulfil the aspirations of this Province become

controversial, but I am satisfied, having spoken directly with Premier Bouchard

this morning, that no action is being contemplated, is being taken, or will be

taken by the Government of Quebec that would challenge the name or the

boundaries of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This issue obviously was first raised by this government four years ago in

its very first Throne Speech following the election. We supported, at that time,

the name change to Newfoundland and Labrador because it accurately reflects who

we are as a province and as a people. Certainly it was with some concern, I say,

when this morning I looked at the comments made by the Premier of Quebec, which

could only be categorized or described as inflammatory in terms of Labrador

being outstanding, in terms of Qu ebec's

view of where its natural borders are. Particularly surrounding the fact that we

are right now in negotiations with the province on a major resource development

on the Lower Churchill. So it was of concern, I think, to every person in this

Province to hear the remarks made by Premier Bouchard which put in question, I

guess, the commitment to a Labrador project by the Province of Quebec and in

terms of good faith, bona fide negotiations.

I am pleased to hear the Premier has taken the initiative this morning,

according to his statement, to correct and clarify this for the record in the

House and thus for the Province. I would also like, at some point, to hear

publicly what Mr. Bouchard has to say about it as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly pleased that the Premier has taken the opportunity to put on

the record his comments and his private discussions with the Premier of Quebec.

We also would like to put on the record - I think it needs to be said - that the

debates in this House over the issue of the change of name from the Province of

Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador were not marked in any

way by any sentiments regarding the place of Quebec in Confederation or the

Province of Quebec, not intended nor should be taken as anything other than the

people of this Province choosing a name that reflects our heritage and the

reality of this Province and our history. It is important that that point be

said for the record here.

I, too, hope that Premier Bouchard will himself go on the record publicly and

tell the people of Canada and of Quebec what he has told the Premier privately,

and I hope that will happen very quickly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, my questions today are for the Premier. They concern Inco and the

pending talks that have been ongoing with the Province.

When Inco first proposed development of the mine at Voisey's Bay, we agreed

with government on the conditions Inco would have to meet. There were four, as I

remember. These are: a long-term mining operation of twenty-five years or more -

certainly statements by both the Province and Inco reflect that was the case;

mining ore from both the ovoid and the underground ore blended, and that take

place concurrently - certainly statements, historic and contemporary statements

in the last year to twelve months, certainly will reflect that; complete

processing in the Province of all the concentrate from Voisey's Bay to a

nickel metal; and, in terms of the technology used, that we would be open to the

use of any new technology that may come forward or be brought forward as long as

it met the other three conditions.

I would like to ask the Premier - that is our position today, still - is it

still government's position? Is that is what is forming the basis of any

tentative agreement with respect to Inco and the ultimate development of Voisey's

Bay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe again the Leader of the Opposition might be a little bit confused, or

does not understand that the government speaks with a single voice on these

issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate and recognize the value of

recognition in the public as being the subject of a cartoon in a local paper and

so on. It shows, I guess, the old adage, there is no such thing as bad

publically.

Regarding this issue, I think if there is any attempt at confusion in the

Province, it is maybe because the Opposition continues to try to press - and it

is a serious issue - for information that does not exist in terms of a proposal

from Inco that we do not have, formal negotiations that are not occurring. Maybe

again it is a concept that some people do not understand or do not like or

really would not engage in if they were the government. We have engaged in it to

try and find if there is some way to have a project that provides full and fair

benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador and guarantees full processing to nickel

metal in Newfoundland and Labrador with the best available technology that we

consider; because that is Inco and the mining sector that decides those issues,

not necessarily the government of the day.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: It has become apparent that the real reason the minister

traveled to Toronto the weekend was to brush up on some stickhandling skills,

because that is all that seems to be going on.

I will ask the Premier the question again. The basis for an agreement with

Inco was the position that we adopted; it was the government's position. There

were four conditions: a long-term mining operation of twenty-five years or more;

mining from both the ovoid and from underground, blended concurrently; complete

processing in this Province of all the concentrate from Voisey's Bay to a

finished nickel project; and, the technology used in processing, that we would

be open to any use of new technology as long as it met the former three

conditions. Is that still your government's position, Premier?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, in the information that we have been discussing in the last week or

ten days - which some people try to suggest is no information, but in the

information that we been discussing - just as we have been having informal

discussions with Inco, there has been nothing, absolutely nothing, said in any

forum in Newfoundland and Labrador that suggests there is anything changed in

the government's position. Mr. Speaker, we are hoping to get to a point where

we can have a formal negotiation.

The issues that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition are all issues -

I just want to make sure we understand the context - they were all issues that

were raised before the Environmental Assessment Review Panel. Our understanding,

as the government, who are still hoping to receive a formal proposal from Inco

so that we can have formal negotiations and maybe even do this deal - these

issues - our understanding is that Inco has publicly stated that they agree with

the recommendations of the Environmental Assessment Review Panel. They agree

with the recommendations which include a long-life project, twenty-five to

thirty years. They include underground mining along with open-pit mining, and

they include the idea that there should be full processing in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, those recommendations are in the Environmental Assessment Review

Panel, and we understand that the government has shown a willingness to accept

those recommendations. The Aboriginal communities of Labrador have indicated

that they agree with those recommendations, and that Inco -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - to my

recollection and understanding, and the government's, have agreed to those

recommendations from the Environmental Assessment Review Panel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker,

in some of Inco's own statements - one recently where it talks about - that as

high-cost mines are phased out, nickel production in Ontario, Manitoba

divisions, will be reduced, for example; with less feed from Canadian mines, we

are seeking opportunities to purchase outside feeds to utilize fully our

efficient processing facilities at both divisions in Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is Inco's stated objective, as a company, in line with being the

lowest cost nickel producer in the world. My question to the Premier is this:

How does that statement - and obviously through your informal discussions the

weekend, through your informal opportunity to meet informally with Inco

officials to talk about informally full processing, less jobs, et cetera, et

cetera -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: - could you

explain to the House: Does this statement by Inco, and what it is pursuing as a

company, how does it impact government's stated position and the people of the

Province's stated position with respect to the development of Voisey's Bay?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would expect that we can understand from the question raised by the Leader

of the Opposition that, if they were the government, they would be fully

concerned about what Inco would like to accomplish; and that would maybe be

their number one priority. For us, we are in informal negotiations, trying to

make sure that they fully understand what is necessary and vital and absolute

for Newfoundland and Labrador, not for Inco.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it has been clear from the very beginning, if

there ever exists and it comes to a fundamental difference between the goals and

objectives of Inco as a corporation and the goals and the objectives of this

government with respect to full and fair benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador,

they know already, and they have known from day one, and they have known for

four years, since this Administration has been here, that if those two come into

conflict there will be no project; and unless the g oals

and objectives of Newfoundland and Labrador for full and fair benefits can be

married with the objectives of Inco, or they adjust their objectives, there will

be no project and they will not be filling up Sudbury or other places with

Voisey's Bay. They will have to go someplace else in the world.

We will have a deal that is in the best interest of Newfoundland and

Labrador. We understand that Inco has concerns. They have things they would like

to accomplish. We will accomplish a deal that is in the best interest, full and

fair benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Mines and Energy did

a complete flip-flop. He said in the House that there would be no necessity for

debate under questioning in this Legislature if it were not open. That they

could, in a sense, issue a mining lease and talk about it publicly afterwards.

This is in complete contravention to what he said last May, that if a deal is

reached he fully expects it to be debated in this Legislature and in the public.

So I would like to ask the Premier this question. If there is an agreement

reached with Inco, will you make a commitment today that this House will have

the opportunity to fully debate it, all aspects of it, before it is final and

binding upon the people of the Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate again an opportunity to return to one of the themes of last

week. It is important to return to one of the themes of last week, which is:

words are important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the issue is this. The Leader of the Opposition

rose at one point last week when his first tactic last week - and this is the

context piece - was to say: Tell us what is in that deal that we figure you

already have done. He tried that for a couple of days.

I readily admit, in the theme of words are important, that those are not

exactly his words. I will admit that. That is not exactly what he said, but that

is exactly what he meant. He was trying to say: Will you tell us the details of

this thing, because we feel that you guys over there already have this deal made

and you are just not telling us? After a couple of days he decided that he was

getting no answers on that because we did not have a formal proposal, we don't

have a deal, so I could not ans wer the questions. You

cannot give the answers if you do not know, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to now conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Then he moved to the approach - just asked the question exactly as he asked

it to the Premier today - and said: If you have a deal, before it is signed -

now, here is the key piece -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: - will there be a guarantee that it will be debated in the

House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer very quickly in a sentence or

two.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The answer I gave was that I would give a guaranteed commitment that there

would be a full debate in the Legislature before it was signed - whatever the

it was, whether that was a MOU, a statement of principles, final contract

language -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The answer was no then, and it is no today.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker,

whoever the minister's old professor was in teaching him words are important,

he should look him up, find out where he is, and get a couple of afternoon

tutorials so he is consistent whenever he speaks about the issue.

I would like to ask the Premier this again. This is extremely important. All

we are asking for is that before a deal is final and binding upon the people of

the Province that this Legislature have the opportunity to debate it fully. We

are not going to hold it up, we will do it in a constructive manner, in a

definitive period of time. Will you provide the opportunity for each and every

member in this Legislature to fully debate, fully discuss, what any agreement is

with Inco? Yes or no?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We fully understand again that the Leader of the Opposition has a completely

contrary view to the greatest publicly known and acknowledged Progressive

Conservative of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. John Crosbie, who states without

any kind of categorization at all, that because of the fact - his point is this.

He is a well known lawyer. He has had success as a political leader with the

Progressive Conservative Party in this Province and in the country as a Minister

of Justice and Attorney General. His suggestion is that it is foolhardy to

suggest that there has to be a debate about this issue in the Legislature,

because there is no vote required in this House. There is no piece of law or

legislation that this particular Assembly has to approve.

What I have said by way of clarification is that if any component - and if we

are lucky enough at some point in time to have an arrangement - requires the

change of a law in the House or the creation of a new law, then obviously it has

to occur in this Legislature. I did answer last spring that we fully expect -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr.

Speaker. We fully expect that a Voisey's Bay deal, if we ever get one, will be

fully debated in Newfoundland and Labrador, everywhere in Newfoundland and

Labrador, including in this Legislature. However, are we going to say that

before we sign anything we will guarantee there will be a debate in this House?

The answer is still no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. It seems likely, probably inevitable now, that Air Canada will

indeed take over Canadian and thus have a monopoly in this Province. We don't

need to talk at length about how critical that issue is to this very Province.

That will mean, in fact, two monopolies to this Province: one for marine

services, and now Air Canada.

My first question to the minister is: What is this government's position

and what has he conveyed to Mr. Collenette?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the talks were going on between Air Canada and the Onex Corporation I

had the opportunity to meet with the federal minister in Saint John at the time

at a minsters' conference. I passed along our concerns on behalf of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador at that time, and we had a commitment -

especi ly as it pertains to a monopoly and what would happen to rural

Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada and so on - at that time that if any merger

took place they would certainly look into what they called competition,

employees' benefits and rights, the service to rural Newfoundland, and so on.

There were five things. Domestic control was another one. The federal minister

promised at that time that they would certainly take this into consideration if

that merger had to take place.

That merger did not take place. As of today, there is another offer made by

Air Canada to buy out Canadian, with approximately $92 million. My

understanding, as of this morning, is that the Board of Directors has

recommended approval. There is no vote, as of now, but I did take it upon myself

last week, after the reports from what happened to InterCanadian employees and

so on - the scheduling into this Province last week - to write the federal

minister again. One of the points I outlined was the Stephenville situation with

regards to a last carrier out of this Province.

The other situation I had was with regards to the employees and their rights

with regards to being notified. The people, the clients and the passengers were

not notified. It was unbelievable what this company did, it was shameful. They

treated their employees with lack of respect and everything else. That was

passed along to the federal minister. There were other concerns as well, some of

them that I mentioned earlier.

I also took it upon myself to write the Canadian Transportation Agency,

because when it comes to a second-last or last carrier to this Province or

anywhere in this country, they must give sixty days' notice. They did not do

that. Under

section 64 and 65 of the act, the Canadian Transportation Agency

could have acted. I wrote them on Thursday. They had seven days. They must give

a carrier seven days. The carrier must give the Canadian Transportation Agency

sixty days, but this morning -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. WOODFORD: This morning, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Transportation

Agency replied to me and said that they are giving InterCanadian until 6:30 this

evening, to respond. Now, under the rules they must give them thirty days after

that to respond. InterCanadian has ten days to respond to my complaint as a

minister. They are breaching all the rules and as of 6:30 p.m., if InterCanadian

do not respond, the Canadian Transportation Agency will take action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: I am glad to hear that, Mr. Speaker, and what type of action

is what we will be listening for closely.

We saw that this summer this government went around the Province with Marine

Atlantic, because of the critical issue that it was. It did involve many people

across this Province, and we have commended the government for doing that. Now

we are talking about the other mode of transportation which is our air

transportation. So that it would give people across the Province - employees,

the people who know the industry - the information that we need in order to

lobby the government to make sure that our message is driven home about how

critical the air transportation and marine transportation is to this Province so

that we could include all those people.

I would like to ask the minister: Is there any consideration for having that

type of consultation process on this issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, until we see what is going to happen with this

Air Canada offer, and until we see what is going to happen with regards to

InterCanadian, I do not think there is any need of that today. The people who

are affected directly here today - some of them are sitting in the gallery - are

the people and employees of InterCanadian. The other subject that we have with

regards to the merger is something we are just going to have to wait and see

what happens with. The federal government has it in its power, for all

legislative and regulatory authority, to do whatever they wish, including

limiting competition, including looking into competition.

To elaborate a little further on the Canadian Transportation Agency, they

have it within their power to lift the license of InterCanadian . They also have

it in their power to bring in financial sanctions against InterCanadian, and

they can also take legal action. Let's wait and see what happens after

tomorrow, see what happens to InterCanadian, because the CTA can act on this and

they can be very severe when it comes to what InterCanadian are doing in this

Province and elsewhere.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If it does, indeed, happen - which all points lead to that - it will have a

drastic impact on the revenues for the local authorities in this Province now.

Do you have any plans to secure help for those authorities so that they remain

operating in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I

take it that the hon. member is talking about the local airport authorities. It

is my understanding that some of the authorities have been, no question, left

holding the bag, so to speak, for some fairly substantial bills that

InterCanadian owed them. I talked to officials in Deer Lake this morning and my

understanding is that the local authority here in St. John's is owed quite a

bit of money. Those are things that will have to be worked out with

InterCanadian and the local authoriti es. I have no

jurisdiction in that matter, but I will take it upon myself to intercede on

behalf of those authorities, on behalf of the employees, and on behalf of

anybody else in the Province to make sure that InterCanadian treat people right

and properly.

I talked to Roy Locke last week, the machinist union here. I'm meeting with

him, some of his staff, clients and employees after the House closes this

evening on some other concerns they have. Anything that I can do, as a minister,

to intercede on their behalf with the minister in Ottawa, whether it is

InterCanadian, Canadian, Air Canada or anywhere else, Mr. Speaker, I will do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today my questions are for the Minister of Justice. Last year you budgeted $2

million and spent nearly $8 million on legal fees for private practice law

firms. This year you budgeted $3 million. Are you going to be three or four

times over budget this year?

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

MR. DICKS: Not as far as I know, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister why fee payments to private lawyers so much over budget

last year and again this year.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government does several things. We budget a certain amount for what is

anticipated. For example, we have ordinary criminal proceedings, family

proceedings at times, and various sorts of things. Rather than hire solicitors,

it is cheaper for us to engage private members of the bar. In recent years we

have had major projects and most the overruns were due to legal fees on projects

that the hon. member would know of: the offshore projects, some of the resource

projects and so on. As of yet, I do not have a firm figure on it but it may be

somewhat more, but we consider them investments in the nature of making sure

that the Province is well represented and our legal interests protected.

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

Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister name the law firms retained by government and the amount

paid to each of them during the 1998-1999 fiscal year and the current fiscal

year? If you do not have the information you could table it, I would say to the

minister. Will the minister undertake to report to the House every quarter,

naming the law firms hired by government and the fees paid to them?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will provide the hon. member with the information. Most of the law firms in

the Province, at one point or another, do work on behalf of government,

depending on the files. What we find, actually, it is often hard to find various

sorts of lawyers to do individual work for us. I would say that, at any time,

most of the major firms in the Province are engaged in work for the Province in

one way or another. I will get the information filed in due course.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. It has to do with the takeover bid of FPI by

the NEOS group, which requires the consent of this government by lifting the 15

per cent share restriction on FPI.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has been silent on this issue to date in terms of

response to the many communities in this Province who have considered this

issue. As communities and as workforces in the FPI communities and plants have

sent a resounding message that they do not favour and do not support this bid,

will the Premier end the uncertainty and, in fact, quell the anger that is

developing in these communities because the government is not listening to them,

and announce that it will not facilitate the NEOS bid by lifting the 15 per cent

restriction?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, myself and the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture are going to go turr hunting some time soon and we will sort all of

this out.

The question to the government is: When will the government act with respect

to the request for the lifting of the 15 per cent share restriction? I have

said, and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has said, and we have both

said publicly - I don't know where the member, the Leader of the NDP, is doing

his research, but we are both on the public record as saying that government

will not act on this request, whether the request comes from FPI - and it has

come from FPI; whether it comes from the shareholders -

and it has come from the shareholders; whether it comes from NEOS - and it have

comes from NEOS; or whether it comes from private sector groups or various

public citizens who have made comment on this - and many have, the government

will not act on any request from anybody until such a time as we are convinced

that it is in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. For

the moment, we remain unconvinced and we are not going to act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the Premier and the minister have said to date is that we have no plans

to change the 15 per cent rule. That is like the Premier saying on a Friday that

he has no plans to call an election, and then calling the election on Monday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. HARRIS: Will the Premier confirm that, in fact, it will not

facilitate the NEOS bid by reducing or eliminating the 15 per cent restriction

on FPI shares?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker,

the Leader of the NDP wants to single out one request. I don't know whether

the Leader of the NDP is deliberately avoiding the fact that there is a request

from FPI.

If we were to assume - I guess this is the position of the Leader of the NDP

- that the NEOS bid were to fail, were to be rejected by the shareholders of FPI

and somebody else were to bid, I presume it is the position of the Leader of the

NDP that we should lift the 15 per cent lid for somebody else.

The difference between this government and the Leader of the NDP is that we

do not care who makes the request. Unless and until we are convinced it is in

the best interest of the Province, we have no plans to introduce any

legislation, irrespective of where the request might come from - including from

FPI.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of

Education.

Minister, a report on compensation for land and other property expropriated

for churches as a part of school reorganization has been in your hands now for

months. Have you decided what you are going to do with it?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we have had considerable discussion with the

Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association about the agreement that

they reached with the RC Episcopal Corporation. There were some concerns,

because obviously we have a responsibility as a government to ensure that any

money that is being spent on redevelopments or on the building of new schools is

that it is being spent effectively and wisely.

Where we are at this stage of the agreement is that the Department of Justice

has had a look at it, our lawyer there, and the lawyer for the Newfoundland and

Labrador School Boards Association has had a look at it, and there are still

some minor concerns there that we are both working on very aggressively to try

and iron out; but, having said that, things are still proceeding in the

redevelopment stages with the various schools because, of course, boards can

always enter into side agreements with the churches.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne. There is

time for one final supplementary.

MR. HEDDERSON: Minister, how much is this going to cost, and will the

money come from the savings from the restructuring and its failure to really

action it up to this point in time? Has it affected school renovations,

extensions, capital construction products, or other things?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member is referring to

when he asks how much it is going to cost. There is no cost associated with

putting the agreement in place itself, but whether or not any of the

construction projects have been hung up, no. As I said in my previous answer to

this, no. School boards have been able to enter into side agreements with the

churches that they are dealing with, until we get the master agreement in place.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In accordance with

section 35 of the Medical Care Insurance Act, I am pleased

to table the Newfoundland Medical Care Insurance Commission Annual Report for

the year ended March 31, 1999.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to now table in the House, six copies of two Orders In Council,

pursuant to

section 26.(5) (

a) of The Financial Administration Act. This relates

to funding pre-commitments, one totaling $46 million, which relates to the

Trans-Labrador Highway initiative; and the second relates to $40.7 million for

the Trans-Canada Highway and regional trunk road agreements. These are done in

the normal course in order to facilitate the tendering of projects and to try to

get them underway in each of the years - in a timely way, I should say, next

year.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the audited financial statements

of the Province's Pooled Pension Fund for the year ending December 31, 1998.

Perhaps just a couple of points. The pension fund grew by 18 per cent last year

and now has investments with a total market value of $1.7104 billion at December

31. There were 13,943 pensioners on payroll, having a total cost of $219.8

million annually.

The two largest plans - the Public Service Pension Plan has a fund balance of

$1,187.8 million and the Teachers' Pension Plan has a balance of $522.6

million.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I call

Notices of Motion, the Chair would like to welcome to the gallery today a former

Member of the House of Assembly for Placentia & St. Mary's, Mr. Anthony

Sparrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hereby notice give notice that I will today bring forward a private member's

resolution, and it reads:

WHEREAS the employment insurance program is funded by workers and the

employers and has in excess of a $20 billion accumulated surplus; and

WHEREAS the federal government has cut over $9 billion from the program's

benefits since 1993 and, as a result, only 36 per cent of unemployed Canadians

are receiving EI benefits today; and

WHEREAS seasonal industries in Canada, such as fishing, logging, tourism and

construction, are critical to our economy, especially to the economy of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and result in the creation of hundreds of thousands

of jobs and make a major contribution to Canada's balance of trade; and

WHEREAS the 1996 federal Employment Insurance Act has resulted in smaller

benefits for unemployed workers because of the punitive deviser and intensity

rules; and

WHEREAS the cuts to the EI program have already deprived thousands of people

and their families in our Province of benefits and have a negative economic

impact on our communities and local businesses; and

WHEREAS government studies have shown that employment insurance serves as an

economic stabilizer during economic downturns and saves jobs during those

recessions;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House call for an immediate review of

the Employment Insurance Act with a view to reestablishing levels of employment

insurance coverage and returning EI surplus money to unemployed workers through

improved benefits.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to bring forward a petition as put forward by people from

Bonavista South and Trinity North. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative

session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador;

Whereas the areas of the Province administered by the Peninsulas Health Care

Corporation do not have dialysis services available and the people in our area

who require regular dialysis services often must relocate permanently to St.

John's and incur the financial and emotional cost of being uprooted to get the

health care they need in order to live; and

Whereas it is our understanding that working dialysis units are being sent

out of this Province and to other countries when the local need is great; and

Whereas it is a principle of Canada's Medicare system that people should

have reasonable access to basic health care services without suffering

discrimination on the basis of where they live;

Wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to approve the stationing of a dialysis unit in the area serviced by the

Peninsulas Health Care Corporation and also provide staff, training and

resources to ensure the regular operation of this dialysis unit.

Mr. Speaker, here again is another petition brought forward by the residents

of Bonavista South and Trinity North on this particular petition. I have stood

here many times since the House of Assembly has been open for this fall sitting,

as well as in the spring sitting of the House of Assembly, on this. The plea

that has been coming from people who live outside of the St. John's area,

outside of the Grand Falls area, outside of the Corner Brook area, coming

through loud and clear, is that they are ask ing for

dialysis units to be placed in a location where they might be able to have

access to this particular medical treatment without having to uproot and move.

The Member for Baie Verte has stood and presented petitions as it relates to

his general area, but this particular petition comes from the Bonavista Bay, the

Trinity Bay area, and their plea is to ask government to have a dialysis unit

located somewhere in the area covered by the Peninsulas Health Care Corporation.

They are not asking a dialysis unit machine to be placed in every hospital or in

every community. They are saying: Look, we are willing to travel. We realize

that it is not the best of economic times and everybody cannot have all

facilities or all treatments available to them within their own community.

MR. TULK: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it is a petition, I say to the Government House

Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is totally unfair and I think it is totally out of

sync with the times that we live in when people have to close up their homes -

and in some cases seniors - bar up their windows, move into St. John's, rent

an apartment, buy furniture and almost mortgage their life in order to access

this life-giving treatment. It is not an option for them to go somewhere else.

The only way that those people can survive and live is to move away from their

families, move away from their communities, move into St. John's, and take on

this new way of living in order to be able to access this service.

One particular resident in my district has been here now for four years

living at the hostel. Every Monday morning he loads up his truck with clothes,

with food, has to bring it in and unload it into the hostel. Friday evening it

is the reverse of that. He cleans out the room and goes home again. He cannot

even maintain his own room here at the hostel without paying a charge. He cannot

even maintain a place where he can store his clothing or store his belongings

during the weekend while he is gone. It is a situation where this one individual

has had other medical treatments in the past and is on special diets. He finds

himself on social services right now and the only way he can access his food is

to go down to the cafeteria with the vouchers that are supplied by the

department of social services. He has come in to this building and I have

arranged meetings for him with the Departments of Human Resources and Employment

and Health and Community Services. The plea has been: If I am going to have to

stay here at the hostel, then maybe you can make it a little more palatable for

me. Maybe instead of giving me the vouchers to go down into the cafeteria to eat

cafeteria food, maybe -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - the value of those vouchers might be given to him in

the form of a cheque where he could go out and pick up the food that he needs in

order to maintain his own diet. That is not even available to him, I say to

members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, it is a plea again to have dialysis units located in strategic

areas where people will live with some degree of decency. Thank you.

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

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

I am again pleased today to rise to speak to this very particular petition,

and commend the Member for Bonavista South for continuing to do so on behalf of

people in his district who obviously have a very similar circumstance to the

people in my district, another rural district. I say to my colleague that we are

- and I know, because I have talked to him on many occasions - going to

continue, every single day if we can, to raise that issue in this particular

House of Assembly.

Before the Premier leaves the House today, I just want to remind him, on this

petition, that when I spoke on one about one year ago, at least some financial

compensation for these people may at least be an interim bit of help for them.

Besides the emotional stress of having to deal with that, and some of the things

that my colleague talked about, there is the financial stress on families that

just cannot take it anymore. The Premier at the time when I did make that

suggestion - that they would at least look at some kind of financial

compensation for people who have to travel such long distances, with gas,

accommodations, and other expenses, that they would at least consider that - did

not say no to that request. It is something he said he would consider.

So I make another compassionate plea to the Premier and his colleagues today

that they would at least consider that. That is only the minimum request. The

real request, like my colleague said, is for the government to please look at

the map again. That is what I say to the ministers. Remember how rural

Newfoundland and Labrador is on our coastlines, and remember the many roads

around the Province that are in tough conditions. Put all those factors

together. Then, another bit of advice I would give them, if they would take it -

and I am sure they would on this particular issue - is sit down with the people,

who are directly affected by this, the people in this Province.

One gentleman did say I could use his name, and asked me to use it. That is

Ron Dempsey in Fleur de Lys. This is a man who worked very hard all his life and

now at a little older age, not too old, still wants to enjoy life, is just

emotionally drained and stressed out on this particular issue. When I sat with

his wife, I could see the pain in her face as she described the situation at

their home. I really genuinely feel for those people. I know them personally.

Then there is the other gentleman - I have not asked to use his name, so I

will not in the House - who lives in La Scie. He is an elderly gentleman who

found the strain so much, not so much from the economical point of view but the

emotional stress, that do you know what he did? He left his home in La Scie in

the winter months and actually got a cabin that he lives in at Badger Lake so he

can be closer to a dialysis machine. That is what he did, bought a cabin at

Badger Lake and moved in so they would be only a few minutes from the dialysis

services which he needs so desperately.

Those are just two examples, and I am sure I can give you many more examples

of the situations where people look for this lifelong service. I am going to

tell this House today and tell each member in it - I know my colleague for

Bonavista South has said the same thing - that we are going to continue as often

as we can to drive home that point. Maybe it will take that long, I do not know.

I am hoping that when this government sits down at their Cabinet table and at

their budgetary meetings with their health boards and so on that they would look

very seriously at the situation and review - up to date - the situation as we

find ourselves in this Province now with dialysis services. If they do genuinely

look at that, then I think that they will seriously consider the many people in

this Province, in rural Newfoundland, who have to travel some three and one-half

hours by road in the wintertime. A lot of them are elderly people who have to

turn to the road to travel to a dialysis machine and then sit at that machine

and travel back again. It is incredible. It is a story that needs to be told in

this Province and we intend to do what we can here to make sure that that

message gets out.

It is something that I find very heartbreaking, to think about the situation

of those families. I said before, it isn't just the financial stress; and I

hope the Premier and the Cabinet will consider some financial compensation to

help in the short term. At least it is one thing they will not have to worry

about. A little bit of expense to help with the large expense that they have to

incur. Really, the issue is that we look around the Province and like the member

said, strategically put dialysis se rvices in areas which

relate to the geography of where they live. It is as simple as that. It is

something that, I think, the government has to give a compassionate look at. I

am really hoping, and I will continue to hope as the member continues to present

petitions, as I will in this House, and my other colleagues -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - that we will get some satisfaction for the people in this

Province on this particular issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker,

Motion 4. This, I say to the Opposition House Leader, is just a simple fact of

getting first reading on a bill,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions

Act, 1991, so we can get it distributed.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill,

An Act To

Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, carried. (Bill 39)

On motion, Bill 39 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

12,

An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law, under the

Minister of Justice, Bill 24.

Motion, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In

The Statute Law. (Bill 24)

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say, in response to my hon. friends' questions, that this is

among the most portentous bills that come to this House in the run of a year,

and I always have the pleasure of introducing it. Or last year, at least.

I am not sure it needs a lot of explanation to most members of the House who

await this with eager anticipation in the pre-Christmas period. It is here yet

again. We have found more errors and we, hopefully, will correct them. Some of

them are consequential, none are really substantive, and that is the reason they

are called errors and anomalies. Anomalies I would explain if I could remember

what they were. They are the sort of inconsistency that should be removed, I

think. My colleagues opposite, I'm

In any event, unless anybody has serious trouble with anything, or unless

anything of substance has crept in here, which is not normally the case, I would

recommend it to the House for passage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Minister of Justice has indicated, this act, Bill 24,

An Act to Remove

Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law, essentially just corrects the mistakes

of the past and recognizes twenty-nine different clauses and different pieces of

legislation that had to be improved largely because of technical reasons.

The

preamble in the Explanatory Notes basically illustrates the purpose of

such legislation, particularly when it states that the amendments in this bill

have been brought to the minister's attention and are technical amendments

not involving matters of policy. Each amendment is explained by reference to the

clause of the Bill by which it is proposed.

It is interesting to note, though, in paragraph 11, we see an amendment of

the Gasoline Tax Act which raises the tax from 14.2 cents a liter to 15 cents a

liter, and makes the tax retroactive to April 1, 1994.

We have a situation here where it is arguable that government has been

collecting the higher rate for the past number of years without the requisite

statutory approval to do so. However, if memory serves me correct, this is for a

particular region of the Province and is not Province-wide. Nevertheless, there

is an argument to be made that in some region of the Province we have taxes

being collected without the appropriate and proper statutory acknowledgments

under the Gasoline Tax Act.

Of course, we have a situation that was addressed last week by several

members in this House, certainly on this side of the Legislature, that we have

gasoline tax which is the highest in the country anyway, and I referred

specifically to Labrador West where a liter of gas is in excess of 82 cents a

liter, and in the capital city, in the City of St. John's, we have consumers

purchasing unleaded gasoline at 75.9 cents a liter when the Canadian average is

65 cents a liter.

It is interesting, although the

preamble of the bill states that we are

talking about technical changes, grammatical changes, typographical errors,

nevertheless

section 11 in and of itself certainly raises the fact and raises

the issue that we now have a retroactive tax being put in place simply because

of the statutes' inability to have dealt with it properly, either by statute

or by regulation.

Another item worthy of note is paragraph 18, I would suggest, which gives the

Medical Care Commission, of course, which is soon to leave the Department of

Health, the right to collect medical costs from an insured person's insurance

company, even if there are insufficient funds to recover all these claims for

losses or for injury.

That is an example, perhaps, where I think the public ought to be aware of

the fact that although a statute is entitled,

An Act To Remove Anomalies And

Errors In The Statute Law, and, as the

preamble indicates in the legislation,

are to be mean changes of a technical nature, that may not always be the case.

It is important, I think, that certainly members of the House and any member

of the public who may indeed be interested, review this legislation to ensure

government does not seize the opportunity to simply slip something through under

the guise of it being either technical or under the guise of simply correcting a

typographical error, and that could easily be done. That is why it is important,

it seems to me, to scrutinize such legislation which, in and of itself, the

purpose of which is to simply make technical changes and to make the type of

technical or typographical changes that are often required from time to time

upon review and scrutiny of statute law.

With the exception perhaps of those points that have been raised, certainly

there is no need, I see, to continue discussing the specifics of this

legislation; but it is important to note that this act has a purpose, has an

intention. It is designed to correct mistakes of the past, and one must always

be on his or her guard to ensure that they are indeed changes of a technical

nature and not matters of policy affecting the people of this Province in any

way.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not take up too much time on this bill. It is, as the minister said in

introducing it, mainly dealing with errors and anomalies in existing legislation

that have been discovered by people in the department or by the law clerks of

the House. Although I suppose it is interesting to note that, for example,

clause 4 of the bill in fact amends another act which was designed to remove

anomalies and errors in the statute law. So, even when we are bringing

legislation before the House of Assembly to remove anomalies and errors in the

statute law, these bills themselves contain anomalies and errors that have to be

corrected by a later bill.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, what that means is that perhaps more scrutiny ought

to be given to legislation that comes before the House before, in fact, it

reaches the stages of legislation here before us. I don't think members of the

House are expected to be able to detect technical errors or deficiencies in

legislation. Obviously our interest mainly is in the area of policy and

certainly, as has been pointed out by the minister and the previous speaker, we

do not see much in the way of policy here. Although, if you look at paragraph 14

of the

Interpretation Act, it has been substituted by a new clause for the

definition of province. I think, if we pass the Constitution Act amendment

that we are seeking - that the Premier made reference to today - it will be

changed again because province is defined there in the

Interpretation Act:

province means the Province of Newfoundland, except when used in reference

to a part of Canada other than the Province of Newfoundland in which case province

inclu des the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories

and Nunavut.

I guess it is like Alice in Wonderland; words can mean whatever we say they

mean.

AN HON. MEMBER: Words are important.

MR. HARRIS: Even though

words are important, in the words of the Minister of Mines and Energy, we are

obviously not here fixing an anomaly or an error in the statute law because

Nunavut did not exist when this particular

section was in the

Interpretation

Act, and it is now here to make provision, to make allowance, for the inclusion

of Nunavut as this country's newest territory. So, Province means Province of

Newfoundland except when it doesn't mean Newfoundland, in which case it means

all other provinces but also includes the Yukon Territory,

Nunavut and the Northwest Territories - none of which are provinces. That is, I

guess, a mouthful for some people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

next year's bill.

MR. HARRIS: This time next

year we will have changed the

Interpretation Act in the new errors and anomalies

in the statute law, and province will now be the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador except when it is referring to parts of Canada outside of

Newfoundland and Labrador, in which case it will also presumably include

whatever territories we have outside.

That being said, I certainly have no further comments to make about the

legislation that we have here except that to have, in any one year, twenty-nine

errors and anomalies in the statute law, many of which are changing numbers,

sections, and words in particular statutes that have obviously been put there in

error or incorrect references; as I say, if we had a little closer scrutiny of

the legislation then we would certainly have a lot less legislation to correct

in an annual bill called,

An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute

Law.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DICKS: Considering all the substantial questions raised in the

matter, I was tempted to table the motion but, on second thought, maybe I will

move second reading instead.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute

Law, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House

on tomorrow. (Bill 24)

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

MR. TULK: Order 13, An

Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel Act. (Bill 25)

Motion, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel

Act. (Bill 25)

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This act is simply to increase the number of Queen's Counsel in any

calendar year from five to ten. The reason for it is that there are quite a

number of lawyers, senior, at the Bar. It is an honour much sought after, which

members of this household and others outside would like to have. In view of the

number of lawyers at the Bar, it seemed to government, upon request from the

association or the Law Society and others, that it would be appropriate to

increase the number so as to confer the honour on those

who might be deserving. In this case, I think that ten would probably be a more

appropriate number than the five we have had for many years. I am not sure

exactly how long ago. It certainly goes back into the 1970s and certainly the

1960s.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This particular bill is a little bit more interesting than the previous

statute or bill that we had an opportunity to discuss. It raises some

interesting issues: Subsection 3(2) of the Queen's Counsel Act being amended

by striking out the figure 5" and substituting the figure 10".

When we look at the old section, it basically states - and I will read it:

The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may only appoint five Queen's Counsel

during a calendar year but the appointments for a calendar year may be increased

by the number for which the appointments for a preceding year have not yet been

filled.

As the minister indicated, it is an attempt to raise the number of

designations from five to ten; however, I think it is important to state that if

this change is going to mean anything, and if this is supposedly an amendment

that will improve the circumstances, it must be an appointment or a designation

that recognizes merit. It is as simple as that. We have seen too many examples

where a designation - which is important amongst a number of the members of the

legal profession, and I may say is not particularly important amongst many

others, but to those to whom it is important it must remain a designation of

significance, of meaning.

I think the key word is merit, because all too often what we see when an

individual is designated or appointed Queen's Counsel, it is simply the fact

that that particular person is a friend of a minister, a friend of the

government, a friend of a particular political campaign, with absolutely no

recognition of that persons's contribution to the profession or that person's

contribution to the community or that person's experience in the profession.

It is these types of things, I say, that ought to be co nsidered

by the minister, by the government, when such a designation is being made.

I will just repeat some of the qualities, some of the criteria, that if this

change is going to be of substance, and if this change is going to be

meaningful, some of the criteria that the minister ought to consider would be

experience in the profession - perhaps trial experience for example; the number

of years that a particular person has served before the Bar of the Province. It

could include a contribution to the professional development of the legal

profession in the Province. It could also recognize community and voluntary

experience and efforts by a particular lawyer.

Mr. Speaker, it is these types of criteria that, if Queen's Counsel is

going to mean anything, government ought seriously to consider; because what we

have seen in the past is simple, ordinary and blatant patronage where an

individual may have worked on a campaign, a friend of a particular minister, and

because he or she happens to be a lawyer and maybe having eight, nine, ten,

eleven, twelve years experience, or whatever the case may be, let's give this

individual a designation known as Queen's Counsel .

What we see and what we have seen in the past by this particular practice

being adopted by this government is total abuse of the significance of Queen's

Counsel, particularly to those who feel that such a designation is important.

I would make two suggestions, therefore. One is that we scrap it. If the

trend and the practice continues, that there is no recognition being given to

merit and no realization that a person's contribution to the profession is in

fact being considered, I would submit that we scrap it. It is simply then, in

that case, not worth the paper it is written on.

If it is rendered as a result of it being meaningful, recognizing merit,

contribution to the profession, contribution to the community, experience at the

Bar, experience in a court of our Province, these are the types of qualities and

the types of criteria, if legitimately being considered by government, could

make this designation worthwhile.

How do we avoid it? How do we avoid the repeating of what the practice has

been in the past of simply naming your buddies and recognizing your buddies as

individuals who ought to be afforded the privilege of being recognized as Queen's

Counsel? I would suggest that could be done by the formation of an independent

committee of the Law Society whose sole purpose it is, is to select - not submit

- and therein lies the problem. There is a committee under existing legislation,

as I understand it, and name s are submitted to government,

and from this list of names government can choose.

The problem is, though, government is not bound by this list and government

is free then to choose a person of their own free will, with total ignorance of

the information that is being provided. I would say that if that trend

continues, the whole process and designation of Queen's Counsel is simply not

worth it.

As I see it, there are two alternatives for government as they do in the

Province of Ontario - just do away with the practice completely, where Queen's

Counsel has been discontinued, to the best of my understanding.; or, by statue,

the formulation of a committee under the auspices and guidance of the Law

Society that will have total responsibility for the selection of Queen's

Counsel in any particular calendar year. I would suggest that a number no

greater than whatever it is - seven, eight, or ten; that is relatively arbitrary

- if it is based on merit, and if there is a group of individuals that ought to

be recognized by the government of the day, in recognition of their contribution

to the profession, and recognizes value, merit and contribution, it means

something. If it does not do that, it means nothing and therefore the

alternative should be - as I have suggested earlier - let's do away with the

practice altogether.

We will be, in Committee, making an amendment to this particular legislation

which will attempt to recognize some of the thoughts that I have just expressed

in the hopes that it will be recognized by members of the profession. If members

of the public are interested - and I would submit most people, perhaps, are not

in the slightest interested, are totally uninterested in what government does

with respect to the designation of Q.C.'s. - nevertheless, if it is done in

this fashion, it can be recognized as a designation of

value and of some importance. We will be - at the appropriate time when we enter

into Committee stage on this bill - making an amendment to the effect that

either the appropriate committee be put in place, be independent of government,

that it will recognize value and contribution to the profession; or,

alternatively, that not being the case, that the practice, as we have seen it in

the past, be discontinued completely and forever and a day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened with interest to the comments of my learned friend from St. John's

East and I agree that we have a system which is governed, in part at least, by

the patronage system. I hope he was not being all inclusive when he indicated

that Q.C.'s have their appointment by virtue of some favor to the governing

party or other role that is undeserving in receiving a designation of Q.C.

Otherwise, I would have expected that his amendment -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - would include

a review of all existing Q.C.'s to ensure that those who now have the

designation are worthy of such designation. I say this as someone who has

received the

designation of Queen's Counsel in the not-too-distance past. I can say,

though, with some experience and knowledge at the Bar, that most people in the

Province have no idea what a Q.C. is, or in many cases what the initials stand

for. In addition to not knowing what it means, even when you tell them - even

members of this House don't know what the difference is between someone who is

a Q.C. and someone who is not. The answer is, outside the legal profession, not

really very much, although it is a des ignation that has a

still than it does here in Canada.

I would tend to agree with the sentiments expressed by the Member for St.

John's East in that, from time to time we see appointments of Queen's

Counsel who are clearly the result of political patronage. Whether that is more

the case than less, I am not able to say. I know his Party has some experience

in government here in the Province and presumably was a part of whatever the

history of the Queen's Counsel designation was. Certainly the seventeen years

of Tory power contributed to perhaps the majority of existing Queen's Counsels

that we have. If he is telling us, from his experience as a party in government,

that is what they did, then I guess what he is telling us is that if they were

there again they would do it differently. They would reform themselves and only

give the designation to meritorious persons.

I guess it is one of those things that is very difficult to reform without a

system that has been suggested by my learned friend. I don't have any

difficulty supporting an amendment - I have not seen the wording of it yet -

that would provide a greater degree of scrutiny to ensure that people who

receive the Queen's Counsel designation at least have that degree of

experience in our courts that would give the Queen's Counsel designation some

recognition of someone who is actually an experienced advocate in the superior

courts of our Province. Generally speaking, I think it is expected that a Queen's

Counsel is a person who can take and has experience in taking relatively serious

and significant matters through the court system.

We have had situations where people have been given a Queen's Counsel

designation who have never appeared in court at all, which is certainly a

debasement of the institution of Queen's Counsels in legal history.

I think there is a legal need for some reform in the appointment process, and

I would hope that members opposite would listen to the suggestions of the Member

for St. John's East in that regard. Although I do see, and I think there is

some merit in what the government suggests, that if we are to continue with the

designation of Queen's Counsel, the numbers as they stand right now do not

allow an opportunity for many senior counsel whose colleagues, I guess, would

expect that they would be in receipt of a Queen's Counsel at this particular

stage in their careers, based on their experience, ability and merit in the

legal profession, that the number of five - given the number of admissions that

we have to the Bar in the last number of years - appears to be inadequate.

I was admitted to the Bar nearly twenty years ago, in April of 1980. I was

number 496, I think, admitted to the Bar since 1820, or whenever they started

admitting people to the Bar. For the first 180 years, there were 496 people

admitted to the Bar. The last Bar admission I was at, they were up to number

1100 in the last twenty years. The number of lawyers admitted in the last twenty

years is equal to the number of lawyers admitted in all the years up to then. So

we do have quite a proliferation of

lawyers, and having only five Queen's Counsel a year appointed obviously means

that, at least in proportion to the number of lawyers at the Bar, the number of

Q.C.'s will continue to be a smaller proportion. If that were to lead to more

meritorious appointments, perhaps that is a good thing. Perhaps a jump from five

to ten is too much to take in any one year, but I do not have any major problems

with increasing the number above five to perhaps seven or eight to allow for a

larger number of appointments. I would support the suggestion by the Justice

critic for the Conservative Party that there be a more formal process whereby a

committee such as now exists is given a stronger role in considering the merit

of appointments to the Queen's Counsel.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that members are generally supportive. I should point out, in terms

of the process, there is a formal process. Nobody can be appointed a Q.C. unless

they are recommended by the committee. So, really, this is just a minor

amendment as to the number of names, and I think people recognize that the size

of the Bar dictates that it is time to increase it. I think members recognize

that, given the size of the Bar currently, it is time to increase the numbers to

something more reasonable. Five certainly, in this day and age, given the size

of the Bar, does not really seem to meet the need and the number of people at

the Bar who deserve this distinction.

That being said, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support and I move second

reading.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel Act, read a

second time, referred to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow. (Bill 25)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

14,

An Act To Amend The Loan (Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund) Act,

1966". (Bill 38)

Motion, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Loan (Canada Pension

Plan Investment Fund) Act, 1966. (Bill 38)

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In years past, when the government was less conscientious and when there were

other people involved, government did an awful thing called incurring deficits

which in turn led a mounting provincial debt. The unfortunate legacy of that is

that at the current time, when we are not borrowing any money, we still have to

go out and refinance monies that were borrowed many years ago. Some of those

monies that were borrowed were from the Canada Pension Plan. Recently, as a

result of some great concern throughout the country that there would not be

sufficient monies to pay the pensions when they became due, the Ministers of

Finance over the last several years came up with a plan to fully fund the

pension plan.

It is going to take some time, and I think it may not become fully funded for

100 years. To achieve it, it would have taken about 14 per cent contribution. We

came to the conclusion that no, we should not go that far, let's try to keep

it at ten or under. There were some changes made that lessened the current

liabilities to the plan. Some things were tightened up a little bit. Part of it

was increased pension contributions, and the third component was to change the

investment structure. One of the things that all the

Ministers of Finance agreed they would do is have a committee that would put

more money into equities, essentially.

Prior to this time, the sole portfolio items that the Canada Pension Plan had

were loans to the provincial and federal governments. Those were in the nature

of fixed rate securities with which hon. members would be familiar. It was

decided that the government would not now in the future lend at what were

preferential rates to the provinces, because the notion was to make the plan

stable and fully funded in and as itself. So, as of now, the provinces will be

able to borrow from the fund if they choose, but it will be at the rate that

they would get in the normal security market in the country.

Now, as a consequence of this - and it is a rather long explanation, but to

put it in perspective - where we had securities in the past that we had borrowed

from the Canada Pension Plan, we now have the right but not the obligation to

roll those securities over. So, what this allows us to do is to roll over the

monies that we now owe to the Canada Pension Plan as they become due. For

example, we might this year - and this does apply in the current year - we might

have a plan or a debt obligation to the Canada Pension Plan in the amount of $20

million which will become due this year. In fact, it is well closer to $30

million. When it becomes due, we have the option to roll it over. The advantage

to the Province in so doing is that we would save ourselves the placement cost

of these securities.

So, what this act does is, it enables us to roll over these securities and I

would recommend it to the House. It is not incurring any new debt obligation. It

is a matter that we often do in our ordinary lives, refinance our mortgage for

the balance that is due, and whatever the case may be. In this case we probably

have some savings because we do not have to pay the cost of placement in the

private market, if you would call it that, which often carries with it something

in the order of three-quarters of a percentage. If you borrow in the European

market it can be as much as 3 per cent of the gross amount that you borrow. We

avoid paying those fees by renewing the security. What this act does very

clearly in the two sections which it has is allow us to issue replacement

securities which postpone the maturity or, in essence, refinance the debt

obligation out for whatever period is appropriate, be it five, ten, fifteen,

twenty or in some cases thirty years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We on this side have looked at the intent of government and we understand

what is being done and why it is being done. We also want to point out that it

has not been unusual, of course, as the minister said, for government to borrow

from the Canada Pension Fund. That has been done for great numbers of years. As

a matter of fact, many of the items of infrastructure we have in Newfoundland

result from the borrowings of governments over many years from that particular

fund. The concern we have of course is that these changes not have any net

negative affects on the cost of borrowing. It certainly has not been explained

by the minister as to whether or not the net affect will be that we will save

money by this rearranging or that it will cost us additional money. What is

happening here is purely, in some ways, a housekeeping item and we understand

that it is necessary to do that from time to time.

One of the things we have to look at, as far as all of our pension funds and

all the other matters that pertain to that go, is really what we are going to do

for some of the pensioners in Newfoundland and Labrador. As far as the details

of the financial arrangement is concerned, these are noted and mentioned, and we

are just hoping that the people of this Province, who depend on their pension

plans, are not going to be negatively affected. We want to draw attention to the

government again of what happ ens

when you don't treat pensioners right. We certainly know that from the public

service pensioners of this Province, a group of pensioners who have not been

treated properly by this government. While the government has borrowed

excessively to try to, I suppose, keep matters in what they deem to be good

fiscal management, among the people who have lost out over the years are the

people who are on public service pensions. While this bill is not particularly

directed towards public service pensioners, it does give

us an opportunity to bring to the attention of the House these people who

trusted government to look after their monies and to make sure that when they

retire they would have a sufficient income that would be able to get them

through their retirement years.

Just a little while ago one of the people who worked with the Province, and

worked in this very building for nearly thirty years, retired. When I was going

along to say to him congratulations on your retirement, I wish you well and hope

you have many years of happiness, he said to me: I have to go immediately and

look for another job. I said: You have your pension, you are sixty years old. He

said: That is not quite sufficient for me to live on and be able to keep my wife

and I in some acceptable standard of living. His pension, after all that time,

was just around $11,000 to $12,000. I kind of felt sorry for him because I

cannot imagine someone working for that length of time and then getting not

quite $12,000 in pension benefits. This is a matter has been brought forward by

many speakers who come to this House, the great numbers of people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: I can see the Minister of Fisheries yawning because we are

talking here about treating people properly. The Minister of Fisheries is not

into treating people properly. For example, many people in his own district, who

are retired public servants, some of them, after many years - in the public

service there is somewhere around 300 pensioners who are getting less than $300

a month in pension benefits. There are 2,180 of them getting less than $9,000 a

year. Yet the Minister of Fisheries finds bringing that up to be quite

unacceptable.

I can see where he would find it unacceptable because his government has

listened out in the corridors of this Legislature for many months to public

service pensioners who come forward here and say: Why didn't you look after

our pension funds a little better? Mr. Speaker, what public service pensioners

have been saying is that they expected government - and to a certain extent,

they expected their union representatives - to be wiser in their management of

the public service pension fund.

Again, I acknowledge that what we are doing here today is not directly

connected to public service pensions, but we have to take every opportunity we

can to bring forward the issues that concern these retirees. While this

government did, last year, introduce a small measure to look after some of the

lowest income people, they certainly did not do what was necessary to be done

and looked after all of the public service pensioners in a fair and equitable

manner.

We on this side of the House again note that many of the public service

pensioners have found it necessary to go out and live, sometimes, off family

assets. I talked to a lady the other day who was eighty-one years old and she is

living off her husband's pension plus her bit of old age pension. She applied

for help through the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs under the

housing program. She is the lady who was told by the officials at housing that

she is on an eight year waiting list. It j ust so happens

that that lady, being a constituent of mine, took some exception to the fact

that she is living on a public service pension and finds herself now being told

that at eighty-one years old you have an eight year waiting list so that you can

end up getting some help to fix the windows in her house. She said to me: My

bedroom window is so drafty that I can see the drapes moving back and forth when

the wind is blowing, particularly from the westerly direction. This particular

public service pensioner would like to have more money put into a program that

is going to help her not when she is eighty-nine years old, providing she is

able to live that long, but somewhere in the next several years.

We have a lot of public service pensioners who are living in very poor

housing, who have to depend on charity. It is not unusual for me to hear tell of

pensioners who have to go and rely on St. Vincent De Paul or the other church

food bank at Cochrane Street United Church, or to go to the Salvation Army or

some other agency in order to be able to get some help. In fact, I know of some

members of this House, some MHAs, who in some cases dip into their own

constituency allowances to help out retirees. I know some members who do that on

a regular basis. Sometimes to their own detrimental, I might say.

MR. HEDDERSON: On this side of the House (inaudible)?

MR. H. HODDER: There are members on both sides of the House, I say to my

colleague for

Harbour Main-Whitbourne, who have to sometimes reach into their own pockets

to try to help out some of the retirees who live in their constituency, in a

very direct manner, and that should not be. We should be looking after our

retirees in a much more acceptable manner.

What we are saying here is that we should be managing the pension fund a lot

more wisely. We should not find it necessary for our public service pensioners

to have to come to the lobby of the House of Assembly, have to write letters,

and in particular the other day, as I mentioned, the eighty-one year old lady

who was told that she would get new windows probably when she is eighty-nine.

God bless her. I know her family history shows that she might very live to

eighty-nine because she comes from Bonav ista

North, I say to my good colleague, the Government House Leader. She has

longevity in her family history, but is being told that she is going to have to

wait until she is eighty-nine years old to get help. She does not reside, I

should say to the Government House Leader, in Bonavista North. She is from

Bonavista North but she is living in the Waterford Valley District - just moved

in a little while ago. I might have to talk to the Government House Leader to

see if we can't get some interaction t o assist this lady

so that she -

MR. SULLIVAN: Here is a good

one. Last February, I got a call from housing. They couldn't locate this lady

who was waiting for so long. I said: No, you will have trouble locating her; the

lady passed away last fall. She had been waiting for years and finally they

approved her, four months after she died. They said: I can't get an answer at

her house. (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: The Opposition House Leader tells about help that came

through for a lady he is familiar with, four months after she had passed away,

which is rather shameful.

With these few comments - there are several other speakers on this side of

the House who want to have comments on this particular piece of legislation - I

will give up some of my time so we can get this piece of legislation properly

debated this afternoon and other speakers can have an opportunity to speak.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise and speak for a few moments on Bill 39,

An Act To Amend

The Public Service Pension Act -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: We are not doing that one, I am sorry. It is not Bill 39. It

is the legislation with respect to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund Act,

Bill 38, currently before the House. I agree with the sentiments expressed by

the minister in that we are moving toward - and so we should be - a fully funded

pension system, but it does provide an opportunity to talk about pensions in the

Province and the fact that so many people in this Province are not adequately

protected by pensions. In fact, the single largest group of poorer adults in

this Province are people who are, in fact, retired and who no longer have the

ability to earn an income in our society because of retirement laws, and in some

cases because of age and ill health.

Mr. Speaker, many of the people who are retired are not, in fact, in receipt

sixty-five years of age. We have so many people who are out of the workforce at

earlier ages than sixty-five, some as young as fifty and early fifties, who have

no reasonable prospect of further employment because, despite the rosy picture

being painted by the provincial government, we, in fact, have 36,000 people in

this Province unemployed. We have a lower participation rate in the workforce

than the rest of Canada. The participation rate for Newfoundland is 52.8 per

cent, compared to the Canadian average of 65 per cent. Participation rate means

people who are either working or actively seeking employment. What that means is

that, primarily because of the job situation, so many people have given up

looking for work or are not actively seeking work because they know that work is

not available for them. So, with13 per cent of our labour force, or potential

labour force - not even part of the labour force, because of that - our

unemployment rate is actually far higher than it appears to be by the numbers

that are glowing represented by the Minister of Human Resources and Employment

as she did today.

The position of people who are not working in this Province, who are in

receipt of some pension, is in many respects so desperate that, as the previous

speaker, the Member for Waterford Valley said, they need to get another job to

be able to afford to live and to be able to live at a rate above the poverty

level.

We have serious problems amongst pensioners in this Province, public service

pensioners as well. Clearly, their circumstance has been outlined to this House

on many, many occasions by this member and by others. They have demonstrated

time and again in our lobby. They have been the subject of much Open Line

comment. They have been petitioning this House and been trying unsuccessfully

since 1989 to get a raise in their pensions from this government. For ten years

they have been left in the shadows when the government increased the wage rate

for public sector workers and traditionally, as part of the legitimate

expectation of these pensioners, received a pension increase at the same rate as

was given to the public sector workers.

That was a part of the pension plan, I would say, although it was not legally

required. It was a traditional form of what otherwise might be called indexing.

Some people have indexed pension plans; not many, I might add, but certainly the

public service pensioners of this Province benefitted from a form of indexing

with the tradition that was there, not written in law or written in a collective

agreement. In fact, the government took the position for many, many years that

pensions were not properly the subject of collective bargaining. How they got

away with it legally is another story, but that was the position taken by the

government of this Province for many, many years, that public service pensions

were not negotiable.

It is not legitimate then, of course, for the Minister of Finance or others

to blame the unions or blame NAPE for failing to negotiate pension increases. In

fact, they were turned down on many occasions by this government or previous

governments when they attempted to do so and put it into collective agreement.

There is another issue having to do with pensions that I think it is time we

had a full investigation and debate on, and that is the use to which pension

funds themselves are put. As we move to a fully funded pension system for this

government, hundreds of millions of dollars, of course, is being amassed as

savings to be ready and available to make pension payments as they become due.

For example, we have the Public Service Pension Plan fund which has considerable

hundreds of millions, if not a billio n

dollars or more, sitting there. We have the Memorial University Pension Fund

that has hundreds of millions of dollars. We have other pension funds in the

public sector, and some in the private sector, that are available pools of

capital for investment purposes. We don't seem to have any particular plan in

this Province, by government or otherwise, to ensure that these pension funds

are used to advance government objectives.

We see, in the Province of Quebec - and I think we can learn things from the

Province of Quebec - how they manage their pension funds to pursue the interests

of the people of Quebec in terms of investment in enterprise, investment in

jobs, and investment in their future. We have a great opportunity here to

influence decisions of investors, to influence decisions of large corporations,

to reward - if I might use it that way - those companies and individuals with

ideas that would be used to advance the economic interest of the people of this

Province.

I'm not saying that we put all our pension funds at risk. There is a way of

ensuring that investments are prudent, that they meet the objectives that a

pension fund ought to met in terms of its long term interest, in ensuring that

there sufficient monies there and that those monies produce some economic return

to the holders, but that those funds can be used to increase the economy of this

Province, to increase jobs in the Province and to make available capital for

projects in this Province that might not otherwise take

place.

When we see the banks having policies that in fact shy away from capital in

Newfoundland and Labrador from time to time, when we see much of the investment

that takes place in pension funds being done through the New York or Toronto

stock exchanges, or places outside this Province, we can see that much of the

capital that rests in pension funds - wh