November

12, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 68

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise hon.

members that the M.H.A. for Bonavista South, Mr. Aubrey Gover, has agreed to

serve as the acting Minister of Justice. He will also assume responsibility for

the position of Attorney General on an acting basis.

I express my appreciation to Mr. Gover for agreeing to serve

in an acting capacity. I have given a great deal of thought over the past few

days to filling this portfolio. It is, for obvious reasons, preferable that the

individual appointed to these particular positions have considerable experience

in the legal profession and, at this point in time, considerable knowledge and

experience in constitutional matters. Mr. Gover and I have discussed these

requirements and, because he is of the same opinion, Mr. Gover agreed to serve

in an acting capacity until such time as Edward Roberts, a well-known lawyer and

former member of the House of Assembly, is in a position to assume the positions

of Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I am very grateful to Mr. Gover for

his co-operation and understanding and I have assured him that I will work with

him over the next few months as he carries out his responsibilities as acting

Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Edward Roberts is a senior law partner with Halley, Hunt,

Barristers and Solicitors. He was called to the Bar of Newfoundland in 1965 and,

in 1979, was appointed Queen's Counsel. In 1989, Mr. Roberts was appointed

Master of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. His political experience dates back

to 1963, when he served as an associate private secretary to the hon. J. W.

Pickersgill. From 1964 to 1968, Mr. Roberts served as Executive Assistant to

Premier J. R. Smallwood and, later, as Parliamentary Assistant. He was elected

to the House of Assembly in 1966 and first entered Cabinet in 1968 as Minister

of Public Welfare, becoming Minister of Health in 1969 and holding that position

until 1972. Mr. Roberts became leader of the Liberal Party in 1972 and served as

the Leader of the Opposition until 1977. He became Opposition House Leader

during the leadership of the hon. Donald Jamieson, from 1979 to 1980. Mr.

Roberts served as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee from 1982 to 1984.

Having been elected to the House of Assembly six times, Mr. Roberts did not seek

re-election in the 1985 Provincial General Election.

Mr. Roberts has agreed to accept the positions of Minister of

Justice and Attorney General, but will require time, approximately until late

January, to complete legal obligations that can only be completed by him,

personally. He will, of course, have to seek election to the House of Assembly

within a reasonable time after accepting the appointment.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that Mr. Roberts has

agreed to accept my invitation. He will bring to Cabinet and to the House of

Assembly many years of knowledge and experience in the political field, as well

as extensive knowledge and experience in the constitutional and legal fields.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is no harm to say that I think we have seen it all now.

You talk about turning back the clock; talk about moving back to the politics of

the 60s; talk about playing the politics of the past.

We have not seen this kind of situation develop for twenty

years. Twenty-five years ago, almost a quarter of a century ago, the Premier,

himself, was appointed to the Cabinet from outside the elected caucus, in an

attempt to try to get him elected to the House. It happened in 1971 with Dr.

Murphy, you will remember; members will remember Dr. Murphy and Mel Woodward and

a few others like that, all of whom got shellacked when the election came up -

AN HON. MEMBER: Kitchen.

MR. SIMMS: Kitchen was not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, I don't think so - all of whom got

shellacked in 1971. There are no modern day precedents for this occurring, none

whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, and the Premier should know it.

Now, he had to go outside the caucus, obviously; it is a

wonder, by the way, after his pontificating at the Liberal Convention a couple

of weeks ago, about how important it was to get more women in politics, why he

didn't choose a woman from the legal profession, or was that all just a bluff?

But, Mr. Speaker, let me say this: the biggest sham of all

has to do with the poor Member for Bonavista South. The Premier has no

confidence in the Member for Bonavista South, to serve in this capacity; he no

confidence in his own back bench to serve in this capacity or his front benches

for that matter, no confidence whatsoever. And I don't know why on earth the

Member for Bonavista South would accept such a smack in the face unless, of

course, he is being promised something down in January or so, when there is

another shuffle, and I don't doubt, that is probably what would happen.

But I think the hon. member should hang his head in shame and

embarrassment; he should resign from the caucus. To accept this, Mr. Speaker, is

unacceptable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They don't like this

kind of politics anymore. They do not believe in this kind of politics, and

everybody across this Province understands it. This is not acceptable. Make no

wonder, Mr. Speaker, there is so much cynicism about politics and politicians in

this country, particularly, now, in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SIMMS: We will see what happens with the other acting

minister positions. We will see if everybody in the back bench there are going

to fit into those slots, as well, or are they going to go outside again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Let me ask the Premier, related to the

statement he just made, is this the testimony, in fact, to the problems he has

in his own caucus? Is he not confident about the members in his own caucus? Does

he not believe there is anybody over there capable of filling the position of

Justice Minister and Attorney General?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, it is no such thing. I

know it upsets the hon. members opposite immensely to see a person of Mr.

Roberts' capability, political stature, and widespread acceptability being added

to the Liberal caucus. That really upsets them and drives them around the bend,

so I can understand the vehement attack. I can understand their doing it in a

devious way in trying to attack the person of the Member for Bonavista South.

That is not the point, Mr. Speaker. The point is clear. At any given time, you

should have as the person holding the office of Attorney General and Minister of

Justice, preferably somebody who has widespread experience and substantial

background in the legal profession, a fairly lengthy background, at that. The

hon. the Member for Bonavista South is new to the profession. He has been there

for five years and out of it for the last couple of years. On the other hand,

Mr. Roberts is a well-known lawyer, who has been involved for close to thirty

years in the legal profession and in the public life of this Province. He is

extremely knowledgeable in constitutional issues. Those are the reasons why he

was chosen as an individual to give me some special help, at this time, that I

need, because of the major constitutional issues in the country. It was a sound

and sensible approach, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Can we expect to see more of this, Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Premier, with respect to the acting Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, and the acting Minister of Environment and Lands

portfolios? Can we expect to see the Premier go outside his caucus to fill those

positions as well?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The question is so specious, Mr. Speaker,

that it is hardly worth dignifying with an answer. Of course not. I explained

the reasons why this particular portfolio was being filled in this way. It is

not as though many commentators and others in the Province have not expressed

similar views and opinions over the last little while. Now I know the hon.

Members opposite want to make as much political fuss and try and gain as much

political mileage as they can, but they are off on the wrong track, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that may be the Premier's view. I

want to remind him his view is not shared by an awful lot of people these days

in Newfoundland and Labrador, on this and any other issue. Now can he tell us

this - he might not like the questions - but let me ask him this. How does the

Member for Bonavista South's credentials differ from that of the Member for

Humber West? Can he explain that so we can understand it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Wider years of experience and background

in the practice of law - significantly different. Also, the Member for Humber

West was appointed at a time when we did not have the major constitutional issue

in the country that we have at the moment. So those are two very different

circumstances that make the approach the Government has taken, I would think,

quite understandable. Clearly understandable to the Member for Bonavista South,

who acknowledged and agreed with the approach, that it was the right thing to

do. So he has no quarrel with it. I do not see why the hon. Members opposite are

so exercised, except they see it as clearly the right thing to do that will get

major credit for the Government, and that offends them I know.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask him one quick final

question. When does Mr. Roberts go on salary?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Obviously, when he is sworn in and takes

the duty, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask a

question to the Minister of Finance, who has neither qualifications or

experience for that particular job. The Minister was quoted as saying over the

weekend that harmonization of taxes is worth considering. Would the Minister

care to explain this statement, in view of the fact that most other provinces of

Canada have rejected such a concept?

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, Mr. Speaker. At the proper time I will

be making a statement in the House as to what we will be doing in tax reform.

This is not the time to comment on newspaper speculation.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister might call it

speculation but they are quoting the Minister. The media are entitled to quote

statements by the Minister, and the Minister should answer to this House for

statements that he makes publicly.

Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister even say that he is

considering it when it has been clearly shown, for example, that the housing

industry and the construction industry will be devastated by such a move, and

that the Premier's much daunted legal profession, for example, would be put at a

decided disadvantage with firms competing from outside as would the engineering

profession and other similar professions? How can the Minister even consider

such a move in the face of these facts?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we have been holding

discussions with a variety of groups as a result of the paper that we

promulgated there at the time of the Budget and since sent out to quite a number

of people. We have since had responses from eighty-five groups, and we have been

sitting down with many of them and discussing their thoughts and reactions to

what they thought might be proposed. We have had substantial discussions with

the construction industry, and they expressed to us some of their fears, most of

which are groundless. But as a result of the input that they have given us, we

have been able to understand their position, and if we proceed in this area

accommodations will be made as much as possible, not only for that industry but

for any others.

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

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

The Minister has said that a broadened RST could be applied

to a wide range of items, and the RST rate lowered somewhat to balance the

impact. He has also said, and it is quoted in last weekends paper, that he is

considering a business tax credit to reduce the burden on business and industry.

How does he propose to reduce a burden on business and industry without

increasing the burden on the private sector, or is he saying that he is going to

further down load responsibility to the municipal level and to the private

sector in order to give businesses this benefit, Mr. Speaker?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can see that we have provoked a bit of interest in this

whole question of tax reform on members opposite, and all I can tell them to do

is hold onto their wool until we make our announcement.

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

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

I have a question for the Premier, and before posing the

question I would like to refer the Premier to a statement put out by his office

on October 18, 1991 pertaining to a meeting that he held with the former

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation earlier that day. The statement

says that the Premier and the former Minister both have agreed that the Minister

should be relieved of the responsibility as a minister and as Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation. Now when I asked the Premier the question on Friday

- and I refer the Premier to Hansard of Friday on page 2416 when I asked the

Premier about the continuation of salary, and so on - the Premier said and

referred to two individuals, "They remain ministers, Mr. Speaker, and will

continue as ministers." I want to ask the Premier, which of these statements is

correct? Which is the true one?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Both, Mr. Speaker, are correct. If the

that he has, not that I have. Mr. Speaker, they have been relieved of their

responsibilities. They do not fit in the Cabinet room and they do not perform

the duties of the office, until -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) should not be paid.

PREMIER WELLS: If hon. members want to answer it

themselves, they can, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

I just want to ask the Premier: How can he explain the

statement coming out of his office, that both he and the former Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation have agreed that the Minister should be

relieved of responsibility as a minister? How can the Premier explain then, on

Friday, telling the House and telling the people of the Province that he is

still a minister and, of course, he still continues to be paid? He cannot be

both, a minister and a non-minister.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is fairly simple. Somebody

has made an allegation, has made a complaint to the RCMP and an investigation is

underway.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not the question.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, it is very much the question. Mr.

Speaker, I consider it not to be appropriate that if an investigation is

underway by the police into some allegation about a minister, that he should be

continuing to function as a minister during the period of that investigation.

The allegation may be totally and completely without substance whatsoever. For

all I know it has no merit whatsoever. But I do not know, I am not going to

prejudge it. So the Minister is relieved from participating in the office of

minister and as a minister until such time as the investigation is completed.

That is no reason to inflict a pre-determined punishment by cutting off salary.

That is all that was done, and the Opposition want to make something of this.

This is a perfectly normal approach, nothing abnormal about it by any

parliamentary standard.

Now, it is regrettable that the hon. Members opposite keep

sinking down to these political lows. I thought the Leader of the Opposition had

indicated that there was going to be a new sense of decorum in the House. It

seems to have disappeared today, to say the least.

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

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

It is too bad when the Premier does not like what is being

pointed out to him as being inconsistencies again on his part. I ask the

Premier: If what he says is correct, and what he says about the court case is

indeed correct, why then would the Premier's office put out this statement on

October 18 saying what it said, that the Minister should be relieved of

responsibility as a minister, if indeed, as a minister, this was not the case.

Why the notice of October 18, from the office? Why did you not tell the people

of the Province the truth then, that the man was staying on as minister and

would continue to be paid? Why not tell the truth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It goes without saying. For example, Mr.

Speaker, the contract that the hon. members opposite negotiated with all the

public service unions provides that if, for any reason, they are relieved of

responsibility in this way, they go out with pay; they are not deprived of their

pay. That is not unusual. That is perfectly normal.

Mr. Speaker, somebody has made an allegation, and it has

caused an investigation to be undertaken. What the Government has decided, Mr.

Speaker, is that it would be inappropriate for the minister to continue to

discharge the responsibilities, not that he be prejudged and removed as a

minister. He remains, and he is, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. He is a Minister of the Crown. He is relieved of the duties of

office until this investigation is complete, but he remains a minister. Now,

they may want to twist it around, and I can see them in their consternation now

suddenly seeing the words `relieved of the responsibility', not `dismissed as a

minister'; it does not say anything about being dismissed as a minister. It says

he was relieved of the responsibility, and he has been; but we are not going to

predetermine the issue and punish him by cutting off salary at this stage. What

are the members talking about, Mr. Speaker?

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

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

Can the Premier, then, explain to the House why, in that very

same statement, he said that both had agreed that the minister should be

relieved of responsibility as a minister, and as Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. The Premier just now said that he is still the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation. How could he say that? I mean, that's what

is here.

MR. SIMMS: Make up your mind. Why don't you just admit

you made a mistake?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the decision in this case was

no different from what it has been in any other situation, that the minister is

relieved of the responsibility, r-e-l-i-e-v-e-d not d-i-s-m-i-s-s-e-d, and there

is a substantial difference between the two words. Now if the members want a

them, but it is very, very clear what the situation is. The minister is relieved

of the responsibility and the power of the office; relieved of the power of the

office, to take him out of it so as to make sure that there can never be any

doubt about the propriety or the thoroughness of the investigation, not that

there is going to be a predetermined adjudication by me and a punishment

invoked, as the hon. members want. It is very clear, and it is too bad the

members feel such discomfort with the position they have taken.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister responsible for Forestry and

Agriculture. On Friday last, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister responsible for

Forestry some questions pertaining to the Kruger operations in Corner Brook. At

that time, the minister stated that he had not had any specific requests from

Kruger or Corner Brook Pulp and Paper pertaining to any problems at the

operation in Corner Brook. In view of the fact that on the weekend, Saturday and

Sunday, officials from Kruger's office met with the union representatives in

Corner Brook, is the minister now in the position to inform the House of any new

developments pertaining to their operation?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, Mr. Speaker, I think my answer Friday would have

indicated that we had not had any specific requests for specific assistance or

specific considerations from Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. I did not indicate - I

thought I had actually indicated otherwise, that yes, indeed, we had indications

from Corner Brook Pulp and Paper that because of the conditions existing in the

newsprint industry, world-wide, they were having difficult times, and pointing

out various facts as they pertain to their operation. But I am certain that I

indicated to the hon. member, at that time, as I have done through the media

over the weekend, that we have not had, to this point in time, from Corner Brook

Pulp and Paper, specific requests for consideration.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister now, after the meetings that were held on

the weekend - and it is obvious from his answer that he still has not had any

consultation with Kruger officials in Corner Brook pertaining to any particular

problem - take it upon himself to have liaison with or speak to Kruger officials

pertaining to this particular problem?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, it may be a little premature. I

have been hearing all the same rumours that the hon. member has been hearing

with regard to the operation. There is no question that the pulp and paper

industry is experiencing very difficult and serious times. Every mill in Canada

- Abitibi-Price closed a mill in Ontario. Kruger is no different, they are

experiencing problems, and I would not be surprised, Mr. Speaker, in the very

near future, we may well be requested to have a meeting and to discuss the

situation with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. If that happens, then we will

obviously have the meetings that are necessary and listen and talk to Corner

Brook Pulp and Paper.

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

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

Because of the uncertainty out in that particular area of the

Province today, would the minister take it upon himself - and I feel that it is

very important, especially pertaining to my district and the whole of the West

Coast in general - to contact Kruger and see what kind of an answer they will

give pertaining to their operations in Corner Brook?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: And I might add, before sitting down, the

Premier says it is irresponsible. It was not irresponsible a year ago when I

asked the same question in this House, Mr. Speaker (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, since there has been, in the

pulp and paper industry, the condition that presently exists, there have been

ongoing telephone calls and face-to-face meetings, keeping the Government,

keeping me, apprised of exactly what the situation is, both with the two

Abitibi-Price mills in Newfoundland and with the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper

mill. I can say to the member, categorically, yes. Within hours from now, I will

talk to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, if he feels it is necessary, or have my

officials discuss with them the specific situation, if they have not already

done so, as they may well have done.

Don't forget, if the management of Corner Brook Pulp and

Paper were to decide tomorrow that they wished a meeting with the Government of

Newfoundland, I would expect that that request would be directed to the

Premier's Office. That may well have happened. But certainly, yes, I will talk

to the officials of Corner Brook Pulp and Paper this afternoon and determine

whether or not they have requested a meeting, and when, and everything else that

needs to happen to allay the member's concerns.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) going to be a figurehead, in

that case.

MR. FLIGHT: No.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member had indicated a final

supplementary. I will recognize him again for a final supplementary.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: I did, Mr. Speaker. But, obviously, the

Premier has made motions to me that he has had representation. Could I ask the

Premier, then, if he has had any information in the last few days pertaining to

the Kruger operations in Corner Brook, and could he inform the House of the

problems?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I had a request for a

meeting. I have not yet had a chance to speak to the minister about it because

of other matters, but I readily agree. A meeting has been set up for later this

week. I just say to the hon. member, if he is really concerned about the

district, he will let these matters take their ordinary course without injecting

this kind of a political dimension into it. It is unfortunate that it could

cause adverse consequences rather than help. So I suggest that the member let

the matters take their normal course. I can confirm for the House that I have

had a request and have agreed to such a meeting.

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

Extern.

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

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Would the minister explain to

the House what monies will be made available to the City of St, John's for the

transition of the Aquarena from Government to the City of St. John's?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the transfer of the Aquarena is

part of the process that is ongoing now in discussions between officials of the

City of St. John's and my department, part of the mandate of the transition team

that has been put in place.

The transfer of the Aquarena, specifically, does not involve

any outlay of monies on the part of the Government. It will be a transfer of the

facility with all its assets and liabilities as they are presently in place,

including the staff. That

process in ongoing now and will be facilitated before January

1st.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: In light of the answer to my previous

question, Mr. Speaker, is the minister confirming that the citizens of St.

John's are going to have to pick up the tab, therefore causing a sizeable tax

increase for an already over-taxed people?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, over the last few years we have

been constantly improving the performance of the Aquarena, financially. We will

be handing over that facility in good financial shape; we do not anticipate that

a deficit will be needed to operate the facility, in fact, I have heard specific

comments from the City, that they expect the arena will not incur any deficit

and they will attempt to break even the operation when they are in charge of it,

when the facility is in their control. As I said, we have improved the

performance of the Aquarena considerably over the last few years, and I would

think that the City will continue with that particular approach and it will not

be a cost or a burden to the taxpayers of St. John's and the region.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, from what the

minister has been telling us for the last minute or so, this is a viable

operation, but, Mr. Speaker, in view of the Government's subsidizing of the

Aquarena to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, how does the

minister expect the City of St. John's to pay for it? Where is the money going

to come from? Is this something magical that the minister has brought up? Where

is the money going to come from, the hundreds of thousands of dollars they are

going in debt every year now?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat the words of

the Mayor and some staff who have been publicly commenting on the Aquarena. They

have been saying, they anticipate that the Aquarena, with the economies of

scale, the fact that they will be able to merge the Aquarena with their existing

recreational facilities, perhaps -

AN HON. MEMBER: Used by the University, maybe.

MR. GULLAGE: - and perhaps used by the University, as

well - they are also having discussions with the University - that they will be

able, by way of management, spreading their management over that facility, as

well as others, to streamline the process, continue with the work that we have

done in streamlining the Aquarena and its management and staff, and in fact, not

incur a deficit. I can only repeat those words of the Mayor and of the staff and

I would hope that that would be the case, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I am not sure who is to

supposed to answer it, but I will direct it, anyway, to the Acting Minister.

Two weeks ago, I drove in to St. John's from Marystown and I

counted seven cars off the road on the Burin Peninsula Highway; as a matter of

fact, I had to take one gentleman from his car and bring him in to St. John's,

as his car was `bottom up' because the roads were not cleared.

This morning, Mr. Speaker, between Bay L'Argent and

Terrenceville, I was an hour and ten minutes doing twenty-five miles. There was

no plough on the road and there was about six inches of slush - may I ask the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, why?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in the areas of the Province

where it is determined by staff on site - and these determinations are made that

way - that there is need for ploughing, that ploughing has been done this

morning, started at an appropriate time and continued.

I do not know of the specific stretch the hon. member is

talking about, I will look into it and find out, but, I would like to point out

to him that these decisions are made on the standard basis. A person, a foreman,

and so on, determine the needs of the area and where the need exist, the ploughs

are out. If, in fact, there was six inches of snow on the roads and there was

any drifting, then there should have been some ploughs out.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister

confirm that the real reason why the roads are not cleared in the morning is

because they are not on a winter schedule, and will not be on it until sometime

in December? And will he undertake to immediately have the winter

schedule

implemented in areas of the Province where the need arises before there is

actual death caused because of negligence by his department?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the reason. As I

indicated to the hon. Member, I know the winter

schedule has not been

implemented yet, but I also know that is not the reason there were no ploughs

out, because in areas of the Province where the people in the areas thought

there was a need for ploughing, the ploughs were out. There were ploughs out all

over central and western Newfoundland last night and today. So, the mechanism is

in place where, if the need exists, the ploughs can be brought out at any point

in time. However, as I indicated to the Member, I will look into that stretch of

the highway and see what happened in that particular instance.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Today the

Canada Employment Center Office in Port aux Basques was under occupation by a

group of concerned individuals who were left out of a programme brought in by

the Federal Government, for the whole Province, as we were led to believe. It

was disclosed last week that the officials of Canada Employment and Immigration

decided to deny the southwest coast, from Codroy to Belleoram, an opportunity to

participate in the Emergency Fishery Response Programme this year.

As the House of Assembly is probably aware, this is the forth

consecutive year of a fishery failure in both winter and summer fisheries on the

south and southwest Coasts. Will the Minister undertake to inform the House of

the Province's position regarding this matter and, furthermore, will the

Minister undertake to make representations to the Federal Minister of Employment

and Immigration, as well as Newfoundland's Federal Cabinet Representative, John

Crosbie, to have this discriminatory action reversed?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the question probably should

have been directed to my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. I can only tell the hon. gentleman that - it is a federal

restriction, by the way, that was imposed by the Department of Employment and

Immigration - no such restriction applies to any provincial funding. For

example, we have a programme in the Department of Fisheries offering assistance

to make-work programmes, and we have not imposed that restriction on that area.

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

Capes

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is to the Minister Responsible for Employment and

Labour Relations. I wonder if the Minister will inform the House who appointed

the individual to arbitrate the recent dispute between NAPE and Treasury Board

involving the teachers' assistants in the Province?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it was quite clear at the time and continues to be

clear to everyone involved in it presently, that when the student assistants

were in a strike position and on the street that, in fact, I, as the Minister

Responsible for Employment and Labour Relations, asked Mr. Andrews if he would

act as a mediator in that dispute, and he did fulfill that duty and has since

submitted a report.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister

for his answer, because the impression was left by the President of Treasury

Board, who had been giving backhanded slaps to the Chairman, that he had been

handpicked by NAPE.

I ask the President of Treasury Board then, why he refuses to

accept the report as tabled by the person who arbitrated the dispute.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is not

arbitration, it is mediation. Secondly, this was not a normal situation. We had

a situation where a collective agreement was in place, there was no collective

bargaining going on, and we were halfway through an existing collective

agreement, and for reasons that are still beyond me, Mr. Speaker, a group of

employees decided to go on an illegal wildcat strike. This was not a normal

collective bargaining situation. Had this, in fact, been part of a normal

collective bargaining situation, leading up to the signing of a collective

agreement or attempting to get one, then the report, perhaps, would have been a

little more significant.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, the workers are back to work. The

situation that existed before the wildcat strike is still in existence. We are

having a look at the hours that the hon. Member knows about, in terms of the

usage in the school system, and we have agreed to ensure that they do not suffer

through a seventeen-month wage freeze. But all of these conditions were in

existence before the wildcat strike, Mr. Speaker, and, consequently, the report,

which did not take into account the fact that this was not a normal bargaining

situation, really does not have a great deal of meaning.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under the Financial Administration Act I would like to table

two pre-commitments of funds. One pre-commitment totalling $2,097,816 to permit

the commitment to tourism advertising contracts for the 1992 tourist season. The

second one a pre-commitment of $550,000 against next year's appropriations to

permit the awarding of contracts for the printing of 1992 tourism information

literature.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I would also like to table

the financial statements for the Province of Newfoundland's pooled pension fund

for the year ended December 31, 1990, and just to mention that the pension fund

during that year grew 16.9 per cent. There were 7886 pensioners on payroll

having a total cost of $91.1 million annually. I would be pleased to answer

further questions on other information that is contained in the document if

Members were to ask them.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to give notice that on tomorrow I will be

presenting the following resolution in this hon. House of Assembly. It reads as

follows;

Whereas the Federal Government's policy of allowing foreign fishing

inside the 200 mile economic zone has resulted in substantial reductions in fish

stocks and drastically affected the livelihood of Newfoundland and Labrador

fisherpersons; and

whereas Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are capable of

catching a number of these species given to foreign countries, for example,

tuna, squid, and caplin;

whereas foreign overfishing outside the 200 mile limit,

in particular on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks has also resulted in

substantial reductions in fish stocks; and

whereas the Newfoundland and Labrador

fishing industry is now in a crisis as a result of increasing quotas caused by

reduced fish stocks;

whereas the fishing industry is today and will be in the

future the main strength of the Newfoundland and Labrador economy; therefore

it resolved that the Federal Government take action to terminate all foreign

fishing inside the 200 mile economic zone and give notice to all foreign

countries that unless the overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks

ceases before January 1, 1993 Canada will take whatever action it deems

necessary to protect its national interest; be it further resolved that the

Federal and Provincial Governments immediately develop a joint management plan

for the fishery; and be it further resolved that immediate improvements be made

to the observer programme in monitoring the Canadian dragger fleet.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to briefly answer a question raised on Page 2417

of Hansard, of Friday, November 8 as raised by the Member for St. John's East.

The hon. Member raised the question as to whether the Minister could advise the

House as to whether or not all workers involved at Baie Verte mines have in fact

been paid the maximum amount they were entitled to under

Section 37 of the Act,

or were there in fact more than 100 people who have not been paid? The

information for the purpose of answering the question, Mr. Speaker, is clearly

that the entitlements that those workers had, and were guaranteed that they

would receive under

Section 37 of the Act, have been met. Those entitlements

referred to vacation pay and pay in lieu of notice. As outlined in the Act they

have been met. There is a continuing question as to whether a further

entitlement under the collective agreement that is in place has been fulfilled

and the union representatives of the workers have been advised to contact the

people acting on behalf of the receivers to see whether or not those provisions

should be covered as well. All those entitlements under the act have been met.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 7.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To

Repeal The Unimproved Lands (Redistribution) Act." (Bill No. 20)

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, this bill as indicated by the

title itself is a Bill To Repeal The Unimproved Lands Redistribution Act.

That particular act was

an act proclaimed in June of 1957,

and under the

schedule of that act, there were eight parcels of land in

Newfoundland that had been identified for appropriation on the basis of paying

thirty cents per hectare to expropriate.

In the intervening years, two of the eight parcels were,

indeed, expropriated, and four were removed from the ambit of the act, leaving

two pieces of land, at this point in time, that are still subject to that

legislation. It is the intention of Government to repeal that act. There are two

pieces of land, one belonging to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper in Corner Brook,

for 1,920 hectares, and another small grant containing 600 hectares, owned by

the estate of Charles Fox Bennett.

What we are saying is, it is grossly unfair, it does not even

make sense, to have land, today, subject to expropriation for thirty cents an

hectare. We are saying that if the Province should ever have need to expropriate

that land, it will be done under normal expropriation procedures, and as a

result, this bill calls for the repeal of that particular act.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the

questions the minister will probably answer when he gets up to close the debate,

is why the whole Unimproved Lands Act had to be repealed, and not just a

section? Because, if I am not mistaken, the

section pertaining to that

Unimproved Lands Act is

part 6 of the act, itself. Why do away with the whole

act? My understanding is, also, from last year, that that particular part of the

act was supposed to be integrated in I think what is now the new Crown lands

bill, Bill 22. Just glancing at it, I do not see this particular Unimproved

Lands Act integrated under the consequential amendments, repeal and

commencement.

Now, maybe it is not, but my understanding was that it was

supposed to be taken out of that particular act, repealed, and put into the new

Crown lands act, at the same time, taking out

part 6, which would be the problem

that the ministers are having with the thirty cents per hectare. That would

address those two problems. Now, maybe I am wrong, but I am pretty well sure

that that was supposed to be integrated in this particular act. I don't see it

there.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I am just wondering - because if the minister

stands and speaks he closes debate, and he could deal with it. My understanding

is, that would have been a route to go, and have a consequential amendment in

terms of the new Lands Act. But my understanding is that the act, itself, is no

longer significant and is repealed, and this is done this way, as opposed to

simply waiting for the Lands Act to be passed, and then, as a result of that, a

change or repeal of this other act comes into place. But it is an alternate way

of going, that is my understanding, and it perhaps could have been done that way

but was not.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he closes the

debate.

MR. FLIGHT: Is there a problem?

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Is there something else? Go ahead, Rick.

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

MR. WOODFORD: If the act, itself, the Unimproved Lands

Act -

AN HON. MEMBER: He spoke already.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am sorry. I understand, the hon. member has already spoken.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just on a point of order.

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

MR. SIMMS: It can be by leave, or we can just move into

Committee in due course and you can debate back and forth then at that stage,

whatever is easiest. I don't think the Member for Humber Valley has a whole pile

of questions so perhaps by leave would be the easiest way.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. BAKER: To that point of order, I think it is probably

better to do it by the leave route, simply because, before we get to Committee,

I want to make sure the member states his position accurately and fully so that

the proper information can be gathered, that is all. So, I don't mind his going

that way.

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

leave.

MR. WOODFORD: Just a couple of comments. My understanding

from the bill, itself, was that the whole Unimproved Lands Act would be

repealed. But the problem that the minister and his department have with the

Unimproved Lands Act is with

part 6. That is the particular part of the act that

is causing the problem. Now, I have no problem about doing away with The

Unimproved Lands Act; as far as I am concerned it can be integrated into this.

But my understanding was that it would be then covered under this particular

act. That's all my question is - the Crown Lands Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not in Bill 22.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: No, but my understanding was that it would

go in there if any question came up about other parts of the act besides

part 6.

If not, that is okay, but if it is not in here, that means it is not going in,

period, is that it, or is it going to be in based on an amendment?

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he closed the

debate.

The hon. the minister.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of

clarification, my understanding is - and I will certainly undertake to find out

whether I am right or not. If I am not, I will provide the member with the

information. My understanding is that The Unimproved Lands Redistribution Act

that was proclaimed in 1957 dealt specifically with these eight parcels of land

and nothing else. That was the act, so it was not just taking out

section six,

or seven of the act. The act dealt only with those eight particular parcels of

land. And what the act said was that that land was identified in the

schedule of

the act to be appropriated at a rate of thirty cents an hectare. That is all

that was dealt with in that particular act. The thirty cents was alright.

But you might as well repeal the act, because it only existed

to deal with those eight sections of land. At the same time, it might or might

not be relevant, but this particular act was tabled at the same time that Bill

22 dealing with Crown Lands was tabled and, of course, we all know that Bill 22

has gone through changes and reconsideration,

whereas this did not, and it was

on the Order Paper and it surfaced. But if that is not satisfactory information,

I can get any other information the member needs.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Unimproved Lands

(Redistribution) Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of

the Whole House presently by leave. (Bill No. 20)

MR. BAKER: Order 16, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Status

Of Women Advisory Council Act." (Bill No. 35).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The change is here,

the amendments, quite a number. First of all, clause 1 amends The Status of

Women Advisory Council Act by having the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

designated minister to be responsible for the status of women. In the current

act, it is the sole responsibility of the Premier, and that has not been the

situation for quite some time. I think the first minister to break that trend

was the present Leader of the Opposition, if I remember correctly, when he was

designated as minister responsible -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: There was somebody before that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Before that, Charlie Power was over it.

MR. BAKER: Charlie, okay. For quite some period of time,

then, the Premier has not been the minister responsible. Anyway, that change is

made, and there are a number of amendments to various other clauses to take

effect to that intent. However, there are quite a number of other changes here.

Clause 3 would amend

section 4 by limiting the personal

liability of a member of the advisory council. "No member of the advisory

council is personally liable for loss or damage suffered by a person by reason

of anything done or omitted to be done by that member in the execution of the

office or in the exercise of or supposed exercise of, the powers given to the

advisory council or to a member of the advisory council." This is a built-in

protection against personal liability for serving on the Advisory Council of the

Status of Women.

Clause 5 expands

section 10 of the act. It, in a sense,

expands the advisory council's powers, and I guess it is primarily (

c) section

of clause 5 that does that. There are a number of powers outlined, that the

advisory council would have, "appoint, promote or remove administrative and

secretarial staff" and all this kind of thing. So there is quite a list here

that adds a little bit to the powers of the advisory council.

Clause 6, again, I guess, adds to their powers. They are

given the power to make by-laws, enter into some contracts, establish funds and

so on, and it allows them to accept donations. This perhaps would straighten out

a situation that has existed for some years now, where the Advisory Council on

the Status of Women found that it was cheaper to actually purchase a building on

LeMarchant Road to use as their headquarters, so they purchased that building

rather than rent because it was a cheaper alternative at the time, and it was

discovered that they really did not have the power to do that. So, in essence,

this gives them the power to own their own building; and this was, by far, the

cheaper alternative at the time when they bought it. So, it would kind of

straighten out that situation where they were in contravention of their own act

by buying that building.

They have also entered into contracts, and there was some

question as to whether they had the right to enter into contracts. They have

done some contracts with the Federal Government, for instance, all of the

contracts aimed at employment for women, and there was some question as to

whether they had the right to do that. This would tend to straighten out that

problem.

Let us see what else of significance is there. I guess these

are the only really significant points, the change of the designated minister

from the Premier to somebody designated by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council,

and the expansion of their powers to take care of some situations that have

existed for some period of time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I just want to have a-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well now, we have one good leader over

here, and one good leader is enough. There is no one else over here who thinks

they are quite capable, Mr. Speaker, of leading - not like those opposite. Of

course, having said that, I should say to the member that perhaps that is what

we saw happen today, that someone from outside is coming in to be set up as the

next leader over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: So `Clyde' can go to Ottawa.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, so the Premier can move on to the

national stage, where he wants to be.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to make just a few

comments on this bill,

An Act To Amend The Status of Women Advisory Council Act,

(Bill No. 35). Basically, what the Government House Leader said is, indeed,

correct. We have no problems whatsoever in designating a minister rather than

the Premier to be responsible for The Status of Women. As the President of the

Council so rightfully alluded to, there were a number of ministers when we were

in government that were responsible for The Status of Women. The Member for

Ferryland, myself, and the Member for Grand Falls, at different times, had that

particular responsibility. My understanding is, a lot of the clauses here have

been suggested by the Auditor General. Perhaps the Government House Leader could

react, but there are some control measures being put in place here from the

financial administration end of things that I believe have been recommended by

the Auditor General. I look specifically at Clause 7, which would deal with the

appointment of a director of administration. There are other clauses,

subsequently, that refer to the setting up of accounts, and limited liability

and so on, on members of the advisory council. So, I think, a lot of the clauses

here are as a result of recommendations and observations made by the Auditor

General; and, of course, any time where you are dealing with funds, public funds

and so on, I think it is more than appropriate that we should do that.

I would like to make just one comment to the Government House

Leader, with respect to Clause 14, where

Section 18 of the Act is repealed and

the following submitted, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make

regulations (

a) prescribing the remuneration to be paid to a member of the

advisory council;" I have no difficulty with that.

The one in question - and I raise this question on behalf of

my colleague from Humber East, who is not here today because she is out with the

constitutional committee - I know is one that there was some concern and

discussion about when we were the Government, which was, the yearly salary of

the President of the Advisory Council, and here we are allowing the Cabinet

really, to set the yearly salary of the President.

My understanding of the concern is, as a result of that, that

the President of the Advisory Council then, is not awarded or given or receives

the annual salary increases that everyone else, say, would get, if it was a year

of a salary increase. I think, if my memory serves me correctly, there were a

number of years where the President of the Advisory Council did not receive an

increase and a suggestion from my colleague as I said, for Humber East, is: is

there any way it could be treated like other agencies where it is tied to the

Executive Pay Plan, and as the yearly increases are awarded, then the President

of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women would, consequently be given the

increase of whatever it was, because what can occur here, based upon this is

that you could go a number of years without the President receiving an increase,

consequently falling far behind by means of salary, so I am just wondering if

there is some possibility of that happening, without the Cabinet of the day,

really I guess having to set the salary and then probably, stays that way for

the duration of the term of the President; so those are the remarks that I have

to make about it, Mr. Speaker. Overall I think it is an improvement and from

what I understand, the Status of Women Council itself supports these

recommendations, except for that one question about the yearly salary of the

President being set by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and, if there is some

way that that salary could be tied to the Executive Pay Plan, so that annual

increases could be given accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister speaks now, he closes

the debate.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I thank the Opposition House Leader for his

comments and, I was just trying to recall - the situation was rather strange in

that an amount was set and was not tied to any particular standard, and there

was nothing in there. Now it seems to me that when we dealt with the new

appointment, we, at that point in time, put it at a level comparable to

something in the pay plan which you are talking about, although it was never

specifically stated as such and I believe that since that time, what happens to

the salary of the President is determined by the advisory council, okay?

Now, it is a very interesting point. Should it in fact be

tied to and be the same as and stated as, the same as a certain level in the

Executive Pay Plan, or should it not? It would perhaps straighten out problems

that we would tend to have every three years; there is a new appointment every

three years and this would solve some difficulty that we might have with that;

it probably would be better if something were taken into account. Right now, it

says: the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations, and I tell the

Member right now, we pay the salary according to a specific level in the Public

Service, but I do not know what that level is; so we are certainly willing to

have a look at that, I will say to the Opposition House Leader.

On motion, a Bill,

An Act To Amend The Status Of Women

Advisory Council Act" (Bill No. 35), read a second time, ordered referred to a

Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 20, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, "An Act To Establish The St. John's Centennial

Foundation", (Bill No. 41).

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The intent of this Bill is

to establish a foundation in the City of St. John's to use donations that are

entrusted to it for charitable purposes. The object of this foundation is to

provide care for the needy, promote the improvement of the underprivileged, the

disadvantaged, to promote educational, medical, and scientific research, to

promote recreational facilities, the conservation of human heritage and natural

resources, and to provide for cultural, educational and other charitable

purposes. Mr. Speaker, it requires

an act established under the Province so that

this foundation can be operative and can receive funding from the public and

from corporate sources as well - fund raising. No such vehicle is available to

the City of St. John's at this time and this particular centennial foundation

will be wide-reaching enough to enable it to fund raise with an foundation in

place to serve all of the purposes and objects as I have just explained them.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything in this

particular piece of legislation which would be - the clauses in it are

motherhood as far as I am concerned. I cannot see anything that would be

questionable. It would be an avenue for the City so that any donations made to

the city, like the Minister said, would be channelled into this so-called trust,

I suppose, whether it be actual dollars, land, or what have you. They can

disperse of it, I suppose, whichever way they wish and make the appropriate

donations in due time. I do not see anything there that would be controversial

or would require any particular questioning.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister speaks now he closes the

debate.

MR. GULLAGE: I have a further brief comment, Mr. Speaker.

As it says in the Bill itself there would, of course, be established a

nominating committee consisting of the Mayor, the Registrar of the Supreme

Court, the President of Memorial University, the Chairperson of the Newfoundland

and Labrador Arts Council, and the President of the Board of Trade. They would

meet annually at the call of the Chairperson to appoint members to the board

which would oversee the operation of the foundation. It is a very

straightforward Act, and as I said earlier, I think it is very necessary to

facilitate giving on the part of individuals and corporations, and other fund

raising, and it will enable the city to carry out a lot of programmes in the

various areas that are identified in the objects of the Bill.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Establish The St. John's

Centennial Foundation," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of

the Whole House presently by leave. (Bill No. 41)

MR. BAKER: Order 8.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Queen's Counsel Act." (Bill No. 21)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are two things that are done here. First of all it is

to appeal

Section 3, which automatically causes the appointment of the Attorney

General and the Deputy Attorney General as Queen's Council. The second has to do

with the Legal Appointments Board. Currently, there is a board consisting of

five members and their duties are to consult the Minister of Justice regarding

appointments made under

Section 2 of the Act, to recommend at the request of the

Minister of Justice the names of suitable persons for consideration or

appointment, and to make recommendations

"respecting such other appointments to legal offices in this

province as may be referred to the board from time to time by the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council."

Under the current situation,

section 6 (2), "Three members of

the Legal Appointments Board shall be appointed by the Minister of Justice and

two members shall be appointed by the Benchers of the Law Society of

Newfoundland."

The Minister of Justice has to ensure as far as possible that

one of the members appointed by him is a member of the Law -

[A POWER INTERRUPTION DELAYED PROCEEDINGS FOR 24 MINUTES]

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it agreeable that we now start? When we recessed the

President of Treasury Board was introducing Bill 21.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying before

I was so rudely interrupted by the Fates, the difference in the Legal

Appointments Board is that previously there were five members, and three members

were appointed by the Minister of Justice, and two members appointed by the

Benchers of the Law Society.

Now the change here is that the five members will be

appointed by the Minister. However, the Minister of Justice must select two

members from a list of seven people to be submitted by the Law Society of

Newfoundland. So the Law Society of Newfoundland submits a list of seven, and

from that list of seven, which is their list, the Minister of Justice picks two

members to sit on the Appointments Board.

So it is a slight change in terms of the Appointments Board.

It outlines the limits that the Minister of Justice can go.

Section 2 (3) says

he shall, "so far as practicable, ensure that among the persons appointed to the

Legal Appointments Board," by him, "one will be a member of the Law Society of

Newfoundland in practice and resident outside the metropolitan area of St.

John's." This is to ensure that there is representation on this Board from the

legal profession outside the St. John's area, and I think that is kind of

important. "And one will be a member of that society who has been practising in

the province for less than 10 years."

That is kind of important as well in that too often something

like this would become the prerogative of individuals who have been around for a

very long time and perhaps would tend to overlook the younger members of the

profession. So we are ensuring that one of the appointees is someone who has in

fact been relatively new to the legal profession and has been practising law for

less than ten years.

Another clause, Mr. Speaker,

Section 6 (4): "The Benchers

shall ensure that one of the people appointed to the Legal Appointments Board by

them will be a Bencher of the Law Society of Newfoundland, and that the other

will be selected from members of that society " - that is, the Law Society -

'who are not actually Benchers.' So this allows the Benchers and non-Benchers to

have representation. So, Mr. Speaker, some minor changes to the Queen's Counsel

Act, and I would suggest this for the consideration of the House.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Make no wonder I

have a bad back today after what went on in the Legislature. Very appropriate I

think that we are talking about the Act To Amend The Amend The Queen's Counsel

Act today. As my colleague pointed out to me, neither the former Minister of

Justice is present, or the present Minister of Justice is present, or the future

Minister of Justice is present, while we are here talking about the Act To Amend

The Queen's Counsel Act.

MR. TOBIN: The elitist bill.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, elite - well, I do not know, elitists,

I would not say it is an elitist bill. Because if my memory serves me correctly,

that we, when we were a government I think, gave Mr. Roberts - or designated him

as a QC, I believe at the time. Was it? I believe we did.

MR. TOBIN: We recommended him.

MR. MATTHEWS: We recommended him, yes, and (Inaudible) -

MR. TOBIN: We made mistakes.

MR. MATTHEWS: - I might add that, very deserving, I had

no problem with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, no, no, very well deserved, I thought.

A very distinguished gentleman in the law profession. They are all coming in -

very distinguished gentleman in the law profession and public life of the

Province, no question. But having said that I do not think that what we

witnessed today can be justified, Mr. Speaker.

A couple of things I want to note about the Bill. That

"Clause 1 of the Bill would repeal

Section 3 of the Act which presently provides

that the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General shall be appointed Queen's

Counsel." Now I find this somewhat amusing because the former, very recent

former Minister of Justice, when he became Attorney General, he accepted the

appointment of Queen's Counsel, and uses the title I think, out and about.

MR. SIMMS: QC.

MR. MATTHEWS: QC, yes.

MR. SIMMS: Hon. Paul Dicks, QC.

MR. MATTHEWS: But now here he is after walking into the

office of Attorney General -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Attorney. (Inaudible) a townie, a townie -

MR. SIMMS: Attorney, a townie, tomato, tomato.

MR. MATTHEWS: - talking like the townies, they call it

"attorneys".

MR. SIMMS: Clyde calls it "Attorney General".

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, the Minister of Education calls it

"attorney."

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: A Tory.

MR. SIMMS: 'Atory' General.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Education was not a Tory,

he just hoodwinked the Tory Minister of Education by telling him he was not

going to run, and went out and did the study, and then the next thing we knew he

was on the ballot paper.

MR. TOBIN: Got the money.

MR. MATTHEWS: He got all the money for doing it.

MR. SIMMS: Look how red he is, look.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, make no wonder he is red.

MR. TOBIN: Top of his head is red.

MR. MATTHEWS: But what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is I

find it somewhat amusing to have this Bill here with Clause 1 being repealed.

The former Attorney General, having taken the QC designation, and now putting

forward a bill to the House so that the current, or existing, Attorney General -

and of course the future one for now, is already a QC - but future Attorney

Generals will not be able to be appointed Queen's Counsel as a result of

an act

of this Legislature. So I find that somewhat amusing. Someone could go into the

office, take the title of Queen's Counsel and, having received it, bring in a

bill here repealing that clause that gives future Attorneys General the Queen's

Counsel. I am sure hon. members can follow what I am saying to them. I mean, it

is unbelievable.

MR. TOBIN: You'll never get it 'Roger'.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations will not have a chance, once he becomes a future Attorney General, of

being a Q.C. I don't know if the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has

reflected on where he sits, but I call it now, Loser's Corner. He had better be

careful, and ask the Premier to move him somewhere else in the legislature.

MR. FUREY: It is irrelevant.

MR. MATTHEWS: 'It is irrelevant,' says the Minister of

Development. There is one thing I must say to the minister, his prediction was

wrong, and I am not going to say any more. His prediction, as of 2:00 o'clock

today, my colleague for Burin - Placentia West, his prediction was wrong on the

new Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: You have been known to be wrong, but you

were way off.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: I am not telling you what his prediction

was. I keep some things secret.

I would like to ask the President of Treasury Board, the

Government House Leader, when he speaks again, could he please try to explain

why that particular Clause 1 is being eliminated, repealed from the act for

future Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General? To me, it seem somewhat

hypocritical, Mr. Speaker, that you would walk into an office and take a title

that was provided for you in legislation, if you so desired. Now, there have

been former Attorneys General, I might add, that did not take the title of

Queen's Counsel. They chose not to. There have been some former Attorneys

General who did not take the title of Queen's Counsel, I tell the Minister of

Development, and that was their decision.

MR. CARTER: There was only one.

MR. MATTHEWS: Only one?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Fisheries says there was

one, so I am going to take his word. I do not take his word about things in the

fishery, but when it come to Queen's Counsel, I will take his word that he knows

what he is talking about, that there was one. That seems to be somewhat ironic,

hypocritical, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: I don't like that Queen's Counsel bit, anyway.

MR. MATTHEWS: You don't like the Queen's Counsel bit.

MR. TOBIN: No, I don't.

MR. MATTHEWS: But there are people who have Queen's

Counsel and whom you like.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, but that is because you don't have it.

I would say, if you were sworn in today as the new Attorney General for the

Province, you would not be long, if you could, in whacking Q.C. behind your

name, I say to the Minister of Development. He would not be too long being Mr.

Charles Furey, Q.C. if he were sworn in to the office of Attorney General,

today. Before it was put to this legislature and that clause repealed, I would

say we would be saying, Mr. Charles Furey, Q.C. He would be introduced at

cocktail circuits all over the Province. He would be some proud of it, and I

would say the Member for St. John's East Extern would be prouder, because he

always keeps saying, 'What a fine fellow!' I don't know - it makes me wonder.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Never, never, too unsophisticated, I

suppose they would say.

Another thing here that is passing strange, or I think

deserves some attention, is that two members of the board shall be selected from

a list of seven persons to be submitted by the Law Society of Newfoundland at

the request of the Minister of Justice - two members of the board shall be

selected from a list of seven, that list of seven to be submitted by the Law

Society of Newfoundland at the request of the Minister of Justice. Now, why does

not the Minister of Justice have the Law Society submit two names, and these two

names would be members of the Board? Why would the minister, the Premier, or

whoever, want to select two from a list of seven? It begs a question. Again, in

my opinion, we are talking about manipulation, trying to work the system to the

advantage of the Government, the minister, or the Premier, so that they can

pick, out of the list of seven, someone they feel is suitable to be designated,

to be given the title of Queen's Counsel. Let the Law Society do it. These are

my observations, Mr. Speaker. As I said, what strikes me most is the repealing

of Clause 1 so that future Attorneys General would not, if they so desire,

receive the title of Queen's Counsel. Maybe the President of the Council can

answer it, and I think my colleague wants to have a few words on it. He is

ambitious and wants to become a Queen's Counsel, I believe.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few words

on this, as well. I am not all excited about this title, Q.C. I know a lot of

lawyers who have the title Q.C., and a lot of lawyers who do not have the title

Q.C., and I think those who don't have it are just as good as those who have it.

I don't know why the minister is not bringing in an amendment today to cancel -

or certainly to set up a Committee of the House to look at, in conjunction with

the Law Society, what this title is all about. What does it really mean?

MR. MATTHEWS: Cancel it altogether.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I have difficulties with what

is going on here.

MR. MATTHEWS: Would you support cancelling it altogether?

MR. TOBIN: If the member wants to throw it out, Mr.

Speaker, he will not have any great objections from me. If the President of

Treasury Board is suggesting that we eliminate it, I will not strongly object, I

can assure you of that. What I am saying is that I do not know why we have to

get in this title of Q.C. I would suspect, Mr. Speaker, that for some reason it

is established as sort of an elitist group amongst the lawyers in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would strongly suspect, that if the Member for Bonavista South,

today, had Q.C. behind his name, if it were Aubrey Gover, Q.C., he would not be

sworn in as an Acting Minister of Justice, he would have been sworn in as a

Minister of Justice. But the fact, Mr. Speaker, that he did not have that title,

that the Premier of this Province, himself, has, the fact that he was not one of

these lawyers and the fact that he was not up there on that pedestal with the

Premier, among the elite of the lawyers in this Province, is the only reason why

he is not the Minister of Justice; and the fact that Mr. Ed Roberts has Q.C.

behind his name, is the reason why he is being brought in. It is because of the

elite status that is set up within the Law Society in this Province.

I remember well a former Liberal member, Mr. Neary, debating

this issue several times before. I remember some of the stands and positions put

forth by the Liberal Party as it relates to Q.C.s in this Province. What I would

like to know is why the former Minister of Justice - it was he who brought in

the bill - took the title, and brought in the bill to eliminate it. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the poor old Member for Bonavista South may never get to be a Q.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: He may never get to be a minister.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I would suspect that there was a deal

down there to make him a full-time minister. But why, in this Province today -

is it because the Premier is a Queen's Counsel, because he is one of the elite

in the Law Society in this Province?

I would like to know also, about this title of Q.C., Mr.

Speaker, For whom is it designated? Is it just for the group of lawyers in St.

John's, or does it go outside of St. John's? Does it go to the South Coast, and

does it go to Central Newfoundland and the West Coast, and Labrador, or is it

just for a group in here?

MR. SIMMS: St. John's lawyers (inaudible). There is a big

difference.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference. I

am saying to you that the Member for Bonavista South would be a full- time

Minister of Justice if he had a Q.C., but because the Premier is such an elitist

and such a pompous lawyer in this Province, and thinks he is, thinks he is the

best lawyer around because he has the title of Q.C. behind his name, he will

only fill the position of Minister of Justice with someone who has the Q.C.. I

believe, Mr. Speaker, that that is nothing short of looking down upon the people

in the Law Society such as the Member for Bonavista South who do not have it.

That is the argument I am making.

I have nothing but respect for lawyers in this Province,

those with and without Q.C.s. I do not see any difference. God help us and the

Province if we did not have these lawyers in the Province. That is what I would

say. But I think we are segregating lawyers with Q.C.s and the lack of Q.C.s.

Why don't we give it to all the lawyers? I am sure there are reasons for that

too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and the Minister of Development agrees

with me, I know he does. Like me, he is from the new school. And I am not so

sure that the President of Treasury Board does not agree with me. But the

biggest problem that I have with this Bill today is that the former Minister of

Justice, the Member for Humber West, who took the title of Q.C., because he

could take it - and rightly so - but at the same time to bring in a piece of

legislation that will eliminate the Member for Bonavista South now taking the

title of Q.C..

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the problems

I have with this Bill. I have a lot of problems with it, but that is one of the

problems I have. Why would a Minister who took the title of Q.C. because he was

the Minister, and justifiably so, and had every right to do it, but why is he

bringing in this -

MR. MATTHEWS: I'll tell you something else too. He tried

to get it for one of his buddies, he is trying to manipulate it to get one of

his buddies there who he knows will never get there if he does not do this.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Grand Bank

says the former Minister of Justice is trying to manipulate the Q.C. system to

get one of his buddies in there.

MR. MATTHEWS: That's right. Who he knows would never get

there without this being done.

MR. TOBIN: Maybe that is the case!

MR. MATTHEWS: I know it is!

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that Lynn Verge you're talking about

or what?

MR. MATTHEWS: No, she could have had it.

MR. TOBIN: She could have had it as Minister of Justice

but did not take it, as I understand it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, she could have exercised her right.

MR. MATTHEWS: There are a number of things she did not

do. She did not have a government car either.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, she did not.

MR. MATTHEWS: She did not have a government car either

when she was Minister.

MR. TOBIN: The question that I want answered - and I want

to emphasize it again, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against the lawyers who are

Q.C.s, and nothing against the lawyers who are not Q.C.s. I think they should

all be treated fairly. But the problem I have is why did a Minister, and I want

to say it again, why did the Minister of Justice, now the Member for Humber

West, take the title of Q.C. which he was entitled to under the legislation, and

when he was finished taking the title, introduce legislation in this House that

denies another Minister, such as the Member for Bonavista South, or the new

Minister of Justice, to take the same title? Those are some of the questions

that I want answered.

Is it possible in this legislation that a Minister of Justice

can manipulate the system so that he or she can have their buddies appointed the

Q.C.s of this Province? I do not know, Mr. Speaker, but I am asking the

question. Is it possible under this that a Minister of Justice can manipulate

the system to have their friends become Q.C.s?

The other question that I would like to have answered, and I

have mentioned it earlier, and I do not know -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, one thing for sure, the

Member for Port de Grave will never get his Q.C.. He will never get anything. He

will never get anything associated with Justice.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, he is going to get Justice.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, he is going to get Justice? He is going to

get Justice. Or you might get your Q.C.. Mr. Speaker, if the Q.C.s for lawyers

is such a great thing, are all the lawyers throughout the Province - for

example, and I do not know the answer to this either. I know there is a -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I will not sit down. But I will ask the

former Minister of Justice to stand up and tell us

No, I will not sit down -

MR. SIMMS: Who is the reporter?

AN HON. MEMBER: Brian Jones.

MR. SIMMS: Brian Jones?

MR. TOBIN: I will not sit down, but I will ask the former

Minister of Justice to stand up and tell us, why he took the Q.C. title himself

and then brought it in. I will ask him to do that and I would also ask him: if

the Q.Cs are going to be handed out for no reason, to certain selective lawyers

in this Province; is it going to be done for lawyers all around the Province?

These are some of the questions that I would like answered.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to - I

would call it debate, but that may be giving it too high a level of acclamation,

but I have listened to the comments made by the members Opposite, and I think it

is quite clear from the comments they have made that it indicates no fault in

the bill, but rather in their own character or in their own approach to life.

First of all, the member used terms such as 'elitist and

manipulation'; that may speak to their own attitude toward how they would order

the affairs of Government to bestow benefits on their friends and that is

something obviously that this Government has never done nor would I expect it to

do in the future, so any question of manipulation by a Minister of Justice -

yes, it is theoretically possible. Would a Liberal Minister of Justice do it? I

doubt it very much, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, the member did not suggest that in

any of the appointments we had made, that this was done -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) answer the question.

MR. DICKS: - but may I just say on that particular point,

that the bill is intended to eliminate any manipulation; because what it does

is, it requires the Minister to appoint a commission and board that would review

any proposed appointments and if the individuals were not deserving of the

honour, they would not pass that committee and therefore would not be accorded

the honour of being a Q. C.

I would point out that the question: whether or not the

Minister of Justice and Deputy Minister of Justice should be automatically

accorded the honour of Q. C., is something that we have reviewed and we do not

think it should be the case. History will show that it was brought in by a

former Minister. I believe it was the hon. Mr. Ottenheimer, who, at that time

did not satisfy the qualification of having served ten years at the bar, and for

some unknown reason changed the law so that he automatically then became

eligible and of course not automatically took, but certainly chose to take the

honour upon himself. So if one would attack it, you would have to attack the

origin but not as an origin in this Government, but rather in our predecessor's

Government, the hon. now Senator Ottenheimer, having done that you might take

that question up with him, but we, at this point in time see no reason to

continue that automatically.

The hon. member also used the term 'elitist', Mr. Speaker,

and suggests along with that that the whole Q. C. distinction should be one that

should be eliminated. There may well be an argument for that and that bespeaks

the frame of mind of those who would eliminate the Monarchy, who would eliminate

the title 'honourable' from members who sit in this House, and obviously that

has a great merit in some people's minds and would as well eliminate those

honours such as: The Order of Canada and so forth, and certainly, if one accepts

that point of view, then one should be consistent and avoid all titles, and I

expect that, that being the hon. member's position, he would not seek to use the

term 'honourable' in his own correspondence or if he is seen as such in the eyes

of his constituents, probably with all due reason I might add.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it raises a basic point as to

whether or not one should have distinctions in society, is it elitist? Yes, to

some extent it is; Q.C.s are considered to be members of the profession who

served with distinction over a protracted period of time, who have shown by the

course of their actions and conducts before the courts that they are deserving

of such a distinction.

It has fallen in some cases and in some provinces and in this

Province in the past to be a hollow sort of honour and one that perhaps some

people did not deserve, but certainly the appointments that we have made speak

to the qualifications of the people and on that I see no reason to eliminate it.

However, I am sensitive to the hon. member's view and would take it that he

would carry it forward and be consistent and eliminate all titles and if that is

his position, it is one perhaps the Legislature should consider.

But as long as we, as a society, espouse any type of honours

to be bestowed on individuals, then it seems to be no less a case that the legal

profession as much as the ordinary members of society who might aspire to the

Order of Canada and such distinction should also be eligible for such honour and

acclaim. That is the origin of the Q.C.; that is the rationale for its

continuance and that being the case, Mr. Speaker, I would commend the bill to

the Legislature for approval as nothing the Opposition has raised, would lead

anyone to doubt its merits. Thank you.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: I have been listening attentively to some of

the speakers, especially the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West, and this

always intrigued me, this Q.C.. I have had friends over the years and still have

friends who are lawyers, some have that Q.C. and some do not. I have known

lawyers who have passed away without ever attaining that distinction.

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. If a lawyer is not

efficient in employing his trade then shouldn't everyone know about it? Why

isn't there some kind of a criteria: like after you are in the profession for

five years, then unless there is something great out there, something that big,

something mammoth that everyone could see, and that lawyer is tarred with it

saying he cannot become a Q.C. because of this impediment, then he is not

eligible. But my big fear - and over the years I have seen it - is that a great

number of Q.C.'s receive that honour through being political. We have a number

of fine lawyers who are not political, who do not have any political ties

whatsoever, be it PC, Liberal or NDP. And if this legislation said today that

all lawyers who come before the bar and have five, six or ten years service,

then they would automatically receive that honour. Why not? I ask the President

of Treasury Board? Why not? Why not have some sort of a criteria where a lawyer

with ten years unquestionable service - most of them do have unquestionable

service - why isn't it automatic? Why do some lawyers go through their whole

lives, die and never receive that honour? They are just as good. Are there

questionable characters out there who we should know about who are not eligible

to receive this honour? Then we should know.

As far as the bill is concerned, the bill is only, I suppose,

in some instances house keeping of the ex-Minister of Justice, who I must say

before this hon. House I regret to see him leaving because he was a young

lawyer, and certainly we need some new -

AN HON. MEMBER: He was a good Minister.

MR. PARSONS: And a good Minister, very much so. I

(inaudible) the Minister over the years and the past couple of years here, and

there is very little to be desired as it pertained to that Minister. And I

thought that that Minister by being youthful and what came across to me as being

articulate, that that Minister had a lot to give to this Province, and I am

sorry to see him leave. But I say to the Minister and on the Q.C. bit, why isn't

there some criteria? If a person can apply his trade, if he is good at it, if

there is nothing really against him, why isn't it after ten years that it is

just automatic that a person becomes a Q.C. and receives that honour? Most times

it is done because of political interference and political pressure. I do not

think the hon. gentleman would deny that. I think it is done through politics.

What I am saying is that I know of good men who have passed on and have never

received that honour. I say that is an injustice, and I think that each and

every person out there no matter what his political stripe is should be in the

running; he should be eligible to receive that degree.

I look at the hon. Member for Bonavista South and -

AN HON. MEMBER: He is a fine young man.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, he is a fine young man. I have not one

single thing to say about that young man. And if he had been a Q.C. today

perhaps we would not have heard the Premier's statement when he had to bring in

a lawyer from outside. Now I do not think that distinction should be there, as

far as being too young and as far as not having the brains, I suppose for better

terminology, to do the job. The Premier said that because of the constitutional

bit, but the constitutional bit is so far down the ladder now that they cannot

get anyone to attend the meetings here or anywhere else, so I cannot see how

that is a formidable excuse not to appoint the hon. Member for Bonavista South.

But the point I am making is that if that hon. Member for Bonavista South was a

Q.C., he would possibly be here as Minister of Justice. I think that is

discrimination. I think that there should be overall - every Member of the Bar

should be eligible for that honour if his credentials were such. Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board, if

he speaks now, will close the debate.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some points have been

raised by the Opposition, certainly, concerning not only this particular Bill

but concerning the legal profession and the way that the legal profession

operates.

Now I have to confess to Your Honour that the workings of the

Law Society and the legal profession are a mystery to me. I have a number of

friends who are lawyers and have been members of the legal profession for a

number of years. I have a niece who is now a lawyer, I have a nephew who soon

will be, and yet having this contact with the legal community the whole thing is

a mystery to me. All I can say is that if this distinction has to be made then

it should be available to everybody, which I understand it is. There are certain

restrictions. You have to be practising law for ten years I believe, and a few

other things like that. But it is something that is open to everybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I am not familiar with the process within the

legal society, within the Law Society, so I could not comment on that comment. I

do know that if it is political I believe it was the Members opposite when they

were in government who gave a Q.C. to a good friend of mine who was Liberal, so

I am not so sure it was totally political. But anyway, if that designation has

to be made then it should be open to everybody, and I believe it is. With the

restriction of - there are some restrictions, one of them being ten years

practice. So, Mr. Speaker, it makes it fair for everybody.

Also I would like to point out to Members opposite that it is

not uncommon in the Canadian situation that the Attorney General not be a

lawyer. So there you would have the anomaly of a person who is not a lawyer

still having the title Q.C. if that person served as Minister of Justice. So

that does not seem to make a great deal of sense either. I believe that a lot of

the trappings and so on we should do away with. We should make the system more

fair, I agree with you. I hope that this Bill goes a small way towards doing

that.

I will not comment at this particular time on the suggestion

by the Member opposite to abolish the Q.C. altogether. Not being a lawyer, that

is the way that I would tend to think. But I do not really want to comment on

it, but the suggestion has been made that maybe it should be abolished

altogether. I believe there are some jurisdictions where it was in and has been

abolished. I think that the title has been abolished and perhaps it is something

that could be considered in the years ahead. But in the meantime, while it is

still there, let's make it as fair as possible.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second reading of this

particular Bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel Act,"

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow or presently by leave. (Bill No. 21).

MR. BAKER: Order 21, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 21.

MR. TOBIN: Point of order!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we just dealt with, in my

opinion, a very important piece of legislation. I am not finished yet, we just

dealt with a very important piece of legislation, regarding the legal profession

in this Province. Now, the acting Minister of Justice is up there in the

backbenches, and I am just wondering for what reason is he not involved in the

debate on this piece of legislation? Why is he not down front where we could

direct questions to him and have input from him instead of somebody like the

President of Treasury Board who like myself does not know a whole lot about

Justice.

We could all receive an education if the Minister of Justice

was allowed to get involved in this debate, and when is he going to be allowed

to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is ready to rule. There is no point of order. Hon.

members are free to rise in the House and be recognized by the Speaker and speak

whenever they so desire. We have just passed the bill in Second Reading and now

we are moving on to Second Reading of another bill. So, there is no point of

order.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise And

Consolidate The Law Respecting The Prevention Of Fire." (Bill No. 53)

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

Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, this bill is

An Act To Revise

And Consolidate The Law Respecting The Prevention Of Fire in the Province, and

deals with several amendments to the bill. Clause 2 would repeal the definition

of "council" and add the definition of "municipal authority" and then subsequent

amendments to that as well.

Clause 3 is amending subsection 3 (2) of the present Act and

adding some subclauses. That would provide that more than one special assistant

be appointed to assist the fire commissioner and that special assistants serve

without remuneration.

Clause 4 deals with amending

section 4 of the present Act,

which would add as local assistants to the fire commissioner, the Chief and

Deputy Chief of Operations and the Superintendent of Training and Fire

Prevention of the St. John's Fire Department.

Clause 6 is an amendment as well, including fire alarms in

the requirements for specifications and plans submitted to the fire

commissioner.

Clause 8 provides changes that would bring the legislation in

line with the current fire prevention practices.

Clause 11 would add a new paragraph, and again this is just

bringing some changes, in this particular clause, in line with current

practices, as well.

Clause 13 clarifies the orders which the fire commissioner

may make.

Clause 18 is amending

section 17 of the present Act by

allowing a local or special assistant to the fire commissioner as well as the

fire commissioner to make certain orders respecting the closure of structures.

Subsections, as well, in that Act are repealed and replaced by subclauses 18

(2) and (5) of this bill, and would clarify the circumstances and manner in which a

structure may have its occupancy limited by the fire commissioner.

Clause 23 would amend the Act by adding a new

section

respecting the establishment of a firefighting training program.

Clause 26 again amends the Act respecting the certification

of persons engaged in the installation and servicing of fire safety devices.

Clause 27 of this Bill would repeal and replace

section 26 of

the present Act to clarify and strengthen the ability of the fire commissioner

and special or local assistants to monitor and control the use and handling of

flammable and other hazardous substances.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we are asking in this bill is that we

enact all these various amendments. The Act, dealing with the prevention of

fire, has not been substantially changed in some time and we are attempting,

with these changes in the Clauses, to bring the Act, the clauses, conditions and

the fire prevention up to modern standards and current practices in the Province

and, of course, throughout the Country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A few comments on some of the changes: There is nothing

really serious, except for the fact that I would like to comment on Clause 6 of

the bill, Clause 6 (1) (c), which says, "to provide for adequate fire alarm,

fire detection, fire suppression and life safety equipment." I think that is

very important, and it is long overdue, as far as I am concerned. We have seen

all kinds of cases and incidents around this Province and around this Country,

Mr. Speaker, where just an ordinary smoke detector let alone a heat detector

would have saved a lot of lives. That particular clause is long overdue. Clause

8 of the bill that would amend subsections 8, 3, and 4, probably the Minister

would comment on that? Maybe I am reading it wrong but 8, 3, and 4, especially

Clause 4 "Where a fire occurs on an industrial site and where the owner or

operator of the industrial site has qualified safety supervisory staff in its

employ, the investigation into the cause, origin and circumstances of the fire

need not be investigated by a special assistant to the fire commissioner." If a

fire started at a place like Come By Chance, maybe I am reading it wrong, but

that would exempt them, would the Fire Commissioner's office not be responsible

to go in and do an investigation in that particular case, or for instance Kruger

in Corner Brook, or some place like that? Maybe the Minister, when he gets up to

speak on the bill and close debate, maybe he could comment on that particular

section?

There is one other

section there, Mr. Speaker. I think it is

Clause 23. This would amend the Act by adding a new section. This would be a new

section added to this particular bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: The fire fighting training program.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, the fire fighting training program.

That has been instituted, if I am not mistaken, it is good to see it there but

the only thing about that is it is a bit ironic that you see this particular

programme put in place, and still in place because I am fairly familiar with it

because of the firehouse that has been established now in Bay of Islands, a very

worthwhile project for the whole area, the west coast, central, east, the whole

works, everybody is taking advantage of it, and more specifically the volunteer

fire brigades on the west coast of the Province. The sad thing about it is the

cuts, the cuts that now are taking place in the Commissioner's office. The

volunteer fire brigade used to always be able to take advantage of the Fire

Commissioner's office in Corner Brook and gain some very valuable training,

experience, and expertise when it comes to fighting fires but now the funding

for the Fire Commissioner's office in Corner Brook is cut. They cannot go out

now and do what they used to do. If I am not mistaken they cannot do it on

weekends at all. The Corner Brook office has been cut to the point where they

cannot train on weekends. There is very minimal training involved now. I would

caution the Minister that while this would be a good programme, and is an

excellent programme, they are not going to be able to do what is expected of

them unless they have some dollars and funds in place to do just that.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, maybe the Minister when he

closes debate would comment on that Clause 8 (4) in particular and the new

Clause 23 and give us an example of what will be happening there in the future

with regards to funding at the Fire Commissioner's office pertaining to training

for volunteer fire brigades.

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

Extern.

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

I have really no fault with this piece of legislation. I was

under the impression that the fire chief and the first officers with the Fire

Department always had consultation with the Fire Commissioner in many areas of

fire fighting. The other thing I was looking at was that twenty-three were fire

fighting training programmes. I was also under the impression that those

training programmes had been ongoing for many years. I know in Gander there was

a facility opened, perhaps ten years ago, and was second to none. Mr. Speaker, I

do have some experience as being a fire fighter with the City of St. John's and

with the Federal Government that on many occasions fire fighters were brought in

from outside and given some training within the City. I suppose the reason for

that was because of the equipment that was available in the City and also

because of the frequency in which the City fire fighters availed

in the use of the equipment and I think it served the

purpose, but I say to the Minister that I thought that without this

twenty-three, means that there will be additional services set up; again, I

thought that these services were already in place; perhaps never used within a

bill or never installed within a bill, but perhaps that is what you are doing

here, but again, I have no fault with it, but I can see too, where the city fire

chief in the major cities and his top lieutenants would be certainly consulted

by the Fire Commissioner as it pertains to hazardous materials or hazardous

liquids moving through those cities or anything else, because a great number of

occasions those people are well trained and can give those services to the Fire

Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just

want to make a few comments on this particular Bill, No. 53, "An Act to Revise

And Consolidate The Law Respecting The Prevention Of Fire", and of course I

guess, as we are all out and about our different areas in the Province from time

to time we run into situations, either by way of being contacted, I guess for

the most part, by operators of businesses and so on who run public buildings.

Now there is one thing that I just want to say in my few

remarks on this: while we all understand the reason for safety and making sure

that buildings are as safe as possible, that proper materials are used on the

walls and the ceilings and so on of the various buildings and public buildings,

particularly out and about the Province, I found in my own area that there is a

degree of inconsistency in the requirements that are placed upon, say one

building as opposed to another.

I do not know if any other members have found the same, but I

have found that to be so; as I said, not down-playing the need for safety to be

uppermost in all our minds, particularly when we are dealing with fires, because

we all know what can happen if you get a number of people in a public building

and a fire breaks out, if there is not an adequate number of exits or if the

materials in the buildings are rather flammable, then we can have a disaster.

But there seems to be a degree of inconsistency out and about

the Province, and I do not know if the Minister can re-act to this or not, with

buildings that are of a similar type, similar type structure in some cases,

about the same size - I mean I know of cases in the same community where

buildings are of approximate size, that the number of people allowed inside the

building for public functions seem to differ and vary somewhat, and as I said, I

think now that the Fire Commissioner's office, when setting the number of people

- I look at Clause 18,

Section 2: 'the Fire Commissioner can order the number of

persons to be permitted in or upon the structure of property shall not exceed

that prescribed in the order,' and of course, I am sure we have all walked in to

public buildings and we see the notice up saying 105 or 210 people allowed in.

The point is that, on a number of occasions you go into

buildings that are about the same size and the number differs. I see the Acting

Minister of Justice shaking his head no, but I do not know if he is saying no to

me in my speech or if he is talking to his colleague; I thought he was saying

no, that what I am saying is incorrect. So, I am just wondering, I think that

the number and the number of people permitted in a building as I understand it,

is established in consultation with the local fire departments or the local fire

brigades I believe; that the fire chief and so on in each community has a look

at the building and then they decide upon a number that is permitted in the

building. But having said that, there has been a discrepancy in my opinion, in

buildings of about the same size where, you know, I am sure we have all run in

to it, where someone wants to have a wedding in a hall and you are only allowed

to have 150 people, yet in another place, in a building of the same size,

somebody can accommodate 250, so there is inconsistency in that and I am

wondering if the Minister, could perhaps just - I do not expect him to answer

today, but if he could just raise the question with the Fire Commissioner's

office maybe, and just ask him on what grounds and guidelines is the number set.

As well, I have run into situations where certain operators of public buildings

have had to incur large expense in renovating their buildings. Now like I said,

I understand why you need materials that are fireproof that offer for the

patrons of the buildings the maximum protection and so on, the least chance of

catching fire, and if it does catch fire of spreading quickly and so on. But I

am just wondering if the Minister could undertake for the House to perhaps some

day come back and just give us a message from the Fire Commissioner on how the

numbers are established, what the guidelines are for old buildings and public

buildings out and about the Province, where inspections are done on buildings

that have to be renovated and so on, what guidelines are used to bring those

buildings up to par?

Those are the only remarks I have to make on the bill, Mr.

Speaker. Having said that there is not too much else we can say about a law

respecting the prevention of fire because we are all very interested in that.

However, I would say that my colleague for Humber Valley's remarks on the

training aspect or the training component is certainly a very important and

valid one. I am sure we have all been very close - I know in my area of the

Province, in my district, I am very, very close to the fire departments in each

community there. The training programs that they have undergone over the years,

some very, very good programmes, and very, very dedicated people out and about

the Province who are for the most part out ready at the call of the fire whistle

to protect the property and life of the citizens of the various towns around the

Province.

So it would be very, very sad, as my colleague for Humber

Valley said, that as a result of cutbacks in funding to the Fire Commissioner's

office we see those training programmes, particularly to the volunteer firemen

out and about this Province, see that training in any way curtailed or hampered

or down played. I think it would be a real crime for the dollars that are spent

on such a worthy programme be curtailed. I would suggest to the Minister that

rather than cut back in any way money for that kind of a programme to the Fire

Commissioner's office that indeed looking at the - if you had to pay the

volunteer firemen out and about this Province, I mean the Province could not

afford it. So we are getting a very good service is what I am saying because

there is some money provided for training of those volunteer people, and I would

encourage the Minister in the upcoming Budget, if there was a cutback in that

particular allocation in this years Budget to look very seriously at finding a

few extra dollars for that very worthwhile programme.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you. I have just a couple of quick

words with regards to the provision of fire detection devises. I just urge the

Minister to support an effort to have municipalities make smoke detectors

mandatory in all houses throughout the Province. I feel it would be very

worthwhile. Smoke detectors now, because of the preponderance of them, are very

low in cost, and of course then would come the enforcement, and that could

certainly be handled in a manner through education through local volunteer fire

brigades doing inspections and getting out to meet the public in offering some

fire education. So I would certainly urge the Minister to support this kind of

thing as well, albeit I am sure that if it was designated as such then such

legislation may be very difficult, but to urge municipalities to put forth

mandatory legislation for smoke detectors, I think, for all existing structures

as well as newly planned ones as it is noted for in the legislation. I just

wanted that on the record, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a few

short words also on the bill. Nobody has any real argument with it. I would like

to follow up on the comments made by the Member for LaPoile. He certainly has a

point, that we should be stressing, at least, the fact that smoke detectors are

extremely important. A number of fires that have ended in tragedy did so because

smoke detectors were not in the house. We ticket people for having a taillight

gone or for not having a seat-belt on, and yet we can let such things as smoke

detectors go, and they are a much greater danger to lives than probably a

taillight missing. If we cannot go in and ticket people for not having smoke

detectors, which is impractical and impossible, a good education program should

take place to equate or make people aware of the need for having such devices in

the home.

In relation to the bill itself, talking about the prevention

of fire, I would just like to mention to the Minister one of the concerns

already raised, and that is about the cutback in funding which might lead to a

cutback in training. In my own specific area, just a couple of years ago, the

local fire brigades in conjunction with different types of make-work programmes

constructed a central training facility in Riverhead, St. Mary's Bay. That has

been used to train people not only from the whole of my area, but Province-wide.

We have had people from all over the Province come there to participate in

different training programmes in the facility. A tremendous effort, a lot of

volunteer time and energy and money, actually, went into it, along with

different make-work programmes, and they have established a very good facility.

Something like that should be looked at very positively by the department when

extra equipment and so on is needed, and I must say has been to a great degree.

One of the concerns every year when the Minister brings in

his money for firefighting, is usually he has to wait until the major packages

are approved to see if there is any money left for the smaller things, like

breathing apparatus, hose and whatever. Quite often it is the smaller items that

cause problems at the local level. If you look at our major firefighting

facilities here in St. John's, fully paid for, fully staffed, all the equipment

and so on provided, then we look at the same towns and communities spread

throughout the Province realizing that they all operate on a volunteer basis,

and some of those fire brigades will stand up with anybody in relation to

professionalism, how they carry out their work and the amount of time and

dedication they put in. Yet, quite often they are hampered by lack of equipment,

because it is extremely hard for them to come up with the amount of money they

have to pay. Even when they do have their own funding, of course, governments

don't have the necessary money in the budget to provide for the needs.

Just recently we had a major fire in Portugal Cove South and

two young people are in hospital in fairly serious condition, one of them in

extremely serious condition actually. It is amazing that both of them were not

burned. We have had tragedies before in the same area, just recently. In this

case the fire brigade did get in there and managed to put out the fire after a

while. But where the house was located, they just barely had hose enough to

reach the house. If the building had been any further away from the source of

water they would not have been able to reach it with the amount of equipment

they have now. Like other councils and fire brigades, they have a request in for

extra hose and extra equipment.

So, I say to the Minister, perhaps it would be something to

look at as he is preparing his budget, to stress to his colleagues the need, not

only for a certain amount of money in the firefighting component in relation to

trucks and major expenses. We cannot take a chance, I do not think, in hoping

that there are - and it was always done this way - a few dollars left over to

provide hoses or breathing apparatus or whatever. All the different fire

brigades get a form letter from the Minister's Office saying, 'your request is

on file - one of many hundreds - 'and we have to wait to see how much money is

left over before we can address it.' These people, as I say, are ready and

willing to put in their own percentage, they are operating on a volunteer basis

and we should see that each year at least several of these requests are

addressed, and eventually all of them. Because the few hundred feet of hose that

any fire brigade has requested might mean the difference between life and death

in the next fire, and we would all have to share responsibility, I think, for

that. So, hopefully the Minister, as I say, will look for extra funding, and

certainly it is something that we all can support.

The rest of the bill, it is good to see that we are zeroing

in on the prevention of fire. Sometimes we look upon these things as meaningless

bills. Certainly here, if we really stick to the rules and regulations and

encourage the use of fire detectors, try to provide extra firefighting equipment

throughout the Province where the people, as I say once again, operate on a

voluntary basis, then some of the tragedies we have had in the past may not

occur again.

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

Provincial Affairs. If the Minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is great to see so many members of the House speak on this

particular bill. It certainly points out the importance of fire prevention in

the Province, and obviously the great interest of Members in the various

amendments.

Mr. Speaker, mention was made of the training programme, and

in fact this is really just to put it into the act and formalize the fact that

we do have an ongoing training programme specifically geared to the volunteer

brigades throughout the Province. As one of the hon. Members already mentioned,

it is very difficult to deliver fire prevention and fire safety services

throughout the Province with such a scattered population and so many small towns

and communities, and allocating the equipment and the various larger pieces of

equipment, the trucks themselves and the fire fighting packages, is always a

difficult chore for the Fire Commissioner. The Fire Commissioner's office, of

course, determines each year the allocation of equipment and the fire fighting

packages and so on, on a regional basis, and tries to co-ordinate fire fighting

amongst the various communities, because we cannot obviously have a fire truck

and all the equipment and related support equipment and services in every

community in the Province, because as we all know, we have some 700 entities

throughout the Province, whether they be cities, towns or smaller communities.

So we try to regionalize as best we can, but we do indeed have a lot of

volunteer fire fighters, and they are doing just a marvellous job.

Our Fire Commissioner's office travels throughout the

Province now and holds training seminars - very well received. They do an

excellent job, and the purpose of this amendment in the act is just to firm it

up in the act. It was not in there as clearly as it was mentioned before, but

now we have formalized the fact that we do have an ongoing training programme

that we will continue to improve upon as time goes on, Mr. Speaker. But I think

everybody would agree that they are doing an excellent job and spend in fact a

lot of their time, all of their time, on the road training in the various

regions of the Province. We will, in fa