December

20, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 80

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. AYLWARD: I am very pleased to announce a major step

in the Provincial Government's efforts to improve air quality concerns in

Labrador West.

In August, I accompanied departmental staff on a visit to the

Iron Ore Company of Canada's mining and processing facilities in Labrador City.

Subsequent to that I wrote company officials to note my concern with air quality

problems in and around the town and requested appropriate action be taken.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we met with Mr. Reg Gagnon, Vice

President of Operations for Iron Ore Company of Canada, who advised me that

approval has been received from their Board of Directors to proceed with a $24

million investment to address air emissions from their concentrating plant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. AYLWARD: This will involve the removal of two dry

grinding mills which have significant air emissions and their replacement by one

wet mill, having the equivalent capacity, but with no air emissions. This

upgrade will be completed by the end of 1997.

The replacement of the two grinding mills will mean a

reduction of 50 per cent in the amount of dust released from the total

processing operation. As a result, a major improvement is anticipated in the air

quality conditions in Labrador West.

In addition, my colleague, the hon. Tom Murphy, Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, is pleased to note that with the conversion to

wet grinding, dust levels in the concentrator will decline substantially, thus

benefitting the workers and having a tremendous impact on Occupational Health

and Safety.

During the two years before this conversion is completed, the

company has agreed to maximize their efforts in controlling dust emissions from

the dry mills to the environment and within the concentrator. Further, they will

also expand their air monitoring program in the town, to better evaluate

compliance with regulations and potential health impacts on the citizens.

This is the culmination of a successful year for the

Department of Environment, Mr. Speaker, in addressing industrial pollution.

Other major noteworthy events this year include: completion of a new bark boiler

at Corner Brook Pulp and Paper; start of construction of secondary treatment at

Corner Brook Pulp and Paper; completion of secondary treatment at Abitibi-Price

in Grand Falls. Improvements in secondary treatment at Abitibi-Price in

Stephenville; continued improvements at the North Atlantic Refining Limited

refinery, which meet and go beyond the conditions of our Environmental

Compliance Initiative.

We look forward to further developments in 1996, Mr. Speaker,

and we congratulate the Iron Ore Company of Canada and also the union

representatives with IOC, who have been very active on this issue for a number

of years and who have impressed upon the company the need for this change. It is

a significant investment by the company. And the Town of Lab City have been very

active and deserve to be commended, Sir, for the good work they have done. As

well, the officials of our department, Mr. Speaker, who have been diligently

trying to do what they can, deserve a commendation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Santa Claus - don't forget Santa Claus!

MR. AYLWARD: Best wishes, Mr. Speaker, and Season's

Greetings.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: I was about to thank Santa Claus for his

announcement, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to see that the Iron Ore company of Canada have

made the announcement that they are going ahead with the replacement of two dry

mills, 9 and 10, with one mill, a state-of-the-art mill that will restrict the

dust emissions within the plants, and of course, also within the communities of

Labrador City and Wabush. It will not only restrict the dust emissions and make

it a safer workplace, but it also tells the people of Western Labrador that

making this sizeable monetary commitment, this $24 million - I am led to

understand that there may be in total capital expenditure over the next two

years in excess of $30 million in the mining company. Of course, this sends a

signal to the community that they have faith in the long-term viability of that

particular mining property and the community. So, that eases a lot of people's

minds.

I am rather disappointed that the minister has not also

announced that he is going to be doing further monitoring and making further

suggestions with regard to the suggestions of the union that they made in

previous meetings with the government to have vegetation planted on the tailings

area, especially in the Wabush mines tailings area, because a lot of the dust

that is coming in over the communities of Labrador City and Wabush is from the

tailings area. I think if planting of vegetation were encouraged by this

government, the mining company would be able to do it, and that would make

cleaner the air quality in Labrador City and Wabush.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: I would hope that the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave to finish up.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. A. SNOW: I would hope that the minister and his

colleagues would encourage the mining company in Wabush to plant vegetation on

this area to make the place a safer and better place to live and work. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I rise to advise members of this

House that the Federal Government yesterday announced plans to extend federal

funding for the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, RRAP, until March

of 1997.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: The housing repair program had previously been

scheduled to end on December 31 1995. The RRAP provides assistance to low-income

homeowners to bring their homes up to health and safety standards. It also

covers emergency repairs for low-income home owners living in rural areas and

provides assistance to persons with disabilities to make their homes accessible.

Another program component is targeted to landlords of rental properties allowing

them to upgrade substandard rental and rooming house accommodations.

In his announcement yesterday, the hon. David Dingwall,

Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, stated that

the federal government has committed $50 million to extend this program as part

of a federal initiative to create jobs and promote economic growth. Based on

preliminary indications, it would appear that the amount of federal funding

available to this Province would be in the order of $2.1 million. The precise

amount has not been yet confirmed.

Over the next few weeks this government will consider the

federal minister's invitation to once again cost share in this RRAP program and

the implications of continuing to operate this program in light of government's

upcoming fiscal Budget.

Thank you.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am going to respond for the

simple reason that I am aware of some of the issues that have taken place on

this, and not because the minister gave a copy to anyone. I say to the minister

that no one on this side got a copy.

What we are saying here is that the whole country of Canada

is going to receive approximately $50 million that is going to deal with several

issues. There is going to be so much given out for people who have apartments,

who are going to get money to fix up apartments, and so much given to home

owners, and probably so much for the rural and urbanized part of the Province -

they are not sure of the details on that, but what we do know, Mr. Speaker, is

what is going to be extended here is very, very little.

Now, I do not know how we are going to be allocated. They

have not told the minister, as I understand it, as to what percentage this

Province will receive.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: It will not be enough I say to the minister,

and it will not go far enough. It is only to appease the few people who have

been looking for it. When you look at what is going to be spread across this

country, $50 million, the few measly million that are going to come to this

Province will not do anything to address the drastic problem that exists in this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions about the Terra Nova offshore oil

development which I will put to the Premier to start with. The developers, Petro

Canada and their partners, have indicated that there will be opportunities for

topsides fabrication to be done in Newfoundland, but subject to competition. I

would like to ask the Premier what he and his government are doing to see to it

that this time the government's pencil is sharp and we don't have a repeat of

the sad loss of work from the Marystown Shipyard in favour of the Maritimes.

What has the government done to learn from the mistakes made with respect to

Hibernia and to ensure that for Terra Nova, for our second offshore oil

development, we derive maximum industrial benefits in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Sharpened pencils are not enough. What we

need is sharpened industries and that's what we have been trying to do with

Marystown and that's the approach that we are taking -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - and if you consult with the Member for

Burin - Placentia West, I am sure that he would endorse what the government has

done in this regard to make Marystown and the entire operation more effective

and more efficient, so that they can wield the sharpened pencil. It is no good

government wielding a sharpened pencil if we can't perform to that standard and

government ends up having to subsidize it or take massive losses, so we have

taken the right course of action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology who

said after Marystown Shipyard lost a big fabrication contract that the

government would sharpen its pencil so that Marystown could be ready for the

next contract. Well, Marystown wasn't ready for the next contract. After it was

awarded to Marystown, it was taken away and towed to the Maritimes. Now, I ask

the Premier, what, in concrete terms, is he doing, is the Cabinet doing, to

ensure that the Marystown Shipyard is better prepared to get any work that's put

out to international competition for topsides fabrication for the Terra Nova

project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: That is precisely the same question cast

in slightly different words, and I have to tell the member that the answer is

precisely the same as the one I have just given.

Now I could take the time of the House and repeat it all but

I won't do that. I will add only this further piece of information, that as of

November, there were 720 people working at the shipyard in connection with -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

PREMIER WELLS: That overall these contracts, for those

two supply vessels, and other contracts valued at over $120 million were awarded

to the shipyard and have accounted for 80 to 85 per cent of its total output,

since 1993.

Mr. Speaker, we can do that, and we will continue to try and

promote Marystown Shipyard, but the critical thing is to make it the most

efficient and most effective we possibly can. That is what, in the end, will win

the day, not government pressure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How the government is going to make the Marystown Shipyard

more competitive and more successful is the big question which the Premier

failed to answer.

Let me ask the minister responsible for Education and

Training about the government's strategy for preparing Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians for jobs that will be generated through the Terra Nova development.

In the case of Hibernia, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians did not get near the

jobs they could have got or should have got had there been a better approach to

preparation and provision of training. Has the government learned any lessons

from the Hibernia experience, and how is the government going to improve the

rate of employment in the Province of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? How is

the government going to ensure that for the Terra Nova project, for which we

know there will be less construction in the Province over all -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS VERGE: - there will be a higher percentage of

available jobs going to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians than was the case for

the Hibernia project?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. DECKER: I wonder, could she repeat the last fifteen

questions, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what planet the hon. member was on.

I take great pride today in what we did with Hibernia. We had a few problems

with the underwater welding - very few - because what the industry wanted was

experience and we could not train experience, but I will proudly say that the

people we trained for Hibernia, probably as much as -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ninety-four per cent.

MR. DECKER: Ninety-four per cent, my colleague tells me,

and let me tell the hon. member something else. There has been some suggestion

about the quality of welding which was done in Korea, which was done in other

parts of the world. The welding that was done by Newfoundlanders had a default

rate of somewhere around 1 per cent, which is unheard of in the industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: So the hon. member should get her feet on the

ground and take great pride in what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have done

with Hibernia, and be confident that we are going to do even better - even

better - when Terra Nova comes on stream.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How the government is going to improve is the question the

minister failed to answer, but I am glad to hear him say that he sees room for

improvement because the rest of us can see room for improvement.

Let me conclude by asking the Premier: The government's best

estimates of the net affect on the provincial treasury of the Terra Nova

development on top of the Hibernia development. What are the current projections

of finance officials of the net gain in revenue for the Province from the Terra

Nova project, net allowing for the loss in equalization payments from the

federal government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I feel like this is a game of musical

ministers, musical chairs or something.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have the numbers off the top of my head,

but in negotiating and working out a fiscal arrangement with the Terra Nova

consortium the officials did a detailed assessment of every which way, and this

was all part of the information used during the course of these negotiations and

discussions, and were the basis on which the Province approved or disapproved of

recommendations coming from officials as to the course that ought to be followed

during the conduct of those negotiations.

I can only say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of the

House, that in general terms the Province will get a greater level of benefit by

way of direct return to government in terms of royalties and tax benefits than

would be the case with Hibernia. Everybody has to acknowledge that Hibernia was

a special one-off arrangement that was made to get the offshore oil industry

going in this Province. It was necessary to establish the foundation. I've often

said, wherever I've spoken in the country, that the big contribution Hibernia

will make is not even the 5,000 jobs that are working there now or the tax

contribution, or the revenue contribution; the biggest contribution will be the

role it will have played as the foundation of a broader-based oil industry that

will benefit this Province for decades to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a

question for the Premier as well On December 13 I questioned the Premier as to

the status of the amendment to Term 17, where it was in the federal system. At

that time the Premier indicated that he was continuing discussions with the

Prime Minister, "...and when I am in a position to indicate something further I

will forthwith it by the House." Further on he said that they were trying "...to

deal with it very effectively at the earliest possible opportunity."

I'm wondering now if the Premier can indicate to the House if

he has a deal from the Prime Minister as to when this will be dealt with in the

House of Commons. Can he confirm for the House that the federal government has

some concerns about the language, the wording of the resolution?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I cannot confirm exactly what the

arrangement is, as at this point in time. I expect I will be able to do so in a

matter of days.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, it is simply not done - if the House

stays open those days it won't be when the House closes. If the House does not

stay open those days then it will be when the House closes but there is no

relationship. It is not in any matter related. I thought the hon. member would

appreciate the logic, Mr. Speaker, but it is not in any manner dependent upon or

related to the closure of the House, I can assure the House of that. The second

question that the hon. -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, there is no indication of any concern

about the language, at least none has been indicated to me.

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

House Leader.

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

supplementary to the Premier.

Does the Premier not have an undertaking now from the Prime

Minister that this matter will be dealt with when parliament resumes in the new

year, the middle of February or whenever it is? Does he have an undertaking that

indeed it will be looked after then or is the provincial government going to

proceed with the reforms that it can proceed with, without waiting for the

amendment federally?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The two questions; the first one, as soon

as the understanding is made clear to me I will make it clear to the people of

this Province through the House if the House is open when it occurs, in a public

statement if the House is not open. I cannot commit to any more then that.

The second question was: Are we prepared to start

implementing some reforms that can be implemented without that? The answer is

they are all underway at the moment. Everything that can be done, without

legislative changes that are dependent upon a change in the jurisdiction of the

House, everything that can be done is in the process of being done or in the

process of being implemented one way or the other. The key issues of course are

school boards, school districts, location of schools, viability standards and

rules. It is not much good our bringing in viability rules if the churches are

going to say: well it does not matter what you say about viability we are going

to have a fifty student school here anyway. We could say well busing is not

under the constitution. We won't give you busing but that is a kind of financial

blackmail and I don't think that that is a right approach for government. So

that we really have to wait until we get the legislative changes.

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

supplementary.

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

Let me ask the Premier this then, is it a matter of

timetable? Is it a matter of arranging a

schedule with the Prime Minister as to

when it will be dealt with by the House of Commons? Is that what the Premier is

trying to work out or is it a more technical matter with the amendment and so on

that is causing some problems, and while he is on his feet, it was reported,

whether correctly or incorrectly, that the Minister of Justice was in Ottawa on

this matter and perhaps the Premier could confirm for us then to clear the air

whether it is correct or incorrect, that's why he was there.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Ministers go to Ottawa from time to time

to meet on a variety of things. Government is not in the habit of discussing it

in detail unless there is some public merit in doing so. I don't see any merit

in doing so in this case and the Minister of Justice was in Ottawa on official

government business and I will let it -

AN HON. MEMBER: OHMS

PREMIER WELLS: OHMS. I will let it remain at that. Now

there was another question, you keep asking those questions -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) but it is a matter of

getting a schedule, a timetable from the Prime Minister or is it more technical?

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I am hesitant to be sort of

foreclosing what the Prime Minister is going to say on it, but I can say to you

that timetable was a matter of concern to the Prime Minister.

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

supplementary.

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

I would like to ask a question if I may to the Minister of

Education and Training on a matter that concerns me deeply and that's a

statement made by the President of the University yesterday - yes, I think it

was yesterday - about one of the options the University is considering to deal

with its shortfall in savings, they can find $2 million but not the $3.4 that

government has directed. That one of the options the University is looking at is

dipping into the scholarship fund.

I want to ask the minister if he supports even a

consideration of that option, not alone taking the option but considering it,

because it is going to have dire consequences for the scholarship fund which has

had difficulty in getting money anyway, but if there is even an insinuation that

the University is going to dip into that fund to deal with a shortfall in

revenue, then the scholarship fund is going to dry up because people are not

going to donate to it because they are going to feel that they have been sort of

done in.

So I want to ask the minister: Does he support the University

even talking publicly about considering the option, and will he indeed support

the University looking in to taking funds from the scholarship fund to get it

through this fiscal year financially?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the statement. I

have no reason to believe that it is wrong or that it is not wrong. At this

stage it is only hearsay so I would put that in the category of hypothetical

questions and I will answer it when I am aware of some real basis for it. At the

moment it is purely hypothetical, it is hearsay and I am not at liberty to

comment. I don't believe in commenting on hearsay.

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

final supplementary.

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

I am sure that someone in the minister's department must have

brought this to the minister's attention. I mean, he can be coy about this but

the reason I raise the question is that I am seriously concerned about even the

President of the University making a public comment such as that, that he would

consider taking money from the scholarship fund because that University has

struggled to build up the scholarship fund that it has, and if word gets out

that it is being considered, that money be taken from it to get the University

through this fiscal year, then certainly, the donors are going to be reluctant

to donate any further I say to the minister. So if the minister hasn't been

advised, will he make an undertaking to call the President of the University and

see if indeed the President is serious about that or even why he would make a

public comment, because even making a public comment in my view is going to be

detrimental to the future of the scholarship fund at the University.

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the reason I hesitate commenting

on hearsay from this particular member, is because, during the last convocation,

the President of the University, if I were to listen to the hon. member, the

President said he was going to increase tuition by 50 per cent or he is going to

lay off 400 faculty members. When I got the speech, what the President had

really said was: Here are things that could be done. We could raise tuition by

50 per cent, we could lay off 400 teachers; none of these things are even being

considered he said so I cannot comment on any hearsay that the hon. member

brings here until I see exactly what the President of the University said. When

I see that, then I will deal with it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Could the minister give the House an update with regard to

the issue of transhipment of Hibernia oil, as to whether or not the oil is going

to be trans-shipped through Come by Chance or Point Tupper or some place in Nova

Scotia. Is there anything new on this, anything the minister can advise the

House?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Very little, Mr. Speaker. That particular

issue has not yet been settled. We hope that it does get settled over the next

few months. We expect it to get settled over the next few months.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation and they relate to an issue I have raised in this House over

the past number of weeks with regard to the lay-off of the mechanic at the

Trepassey depot.

Since this winter season

schedule started for Works, Services

and Transportation, the mechanical duties at Trepassey have been carried out by

two mechanics from Renews, all in an effort, as the minister would say, to save

money. During the first two weeks of December, these two mechanics have worked,

along with their regular hours, 131 hours of overtime, which at time-and-a-half,

equals 196.5 regular hours, which would be almost five regular forty-hour weeks

for the Trepassey mechanic. I ask the minister: Is this, the new math in his

department, really saving dollars for this Province, or is it a charade?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not say at

any time that we laid off mechanics to save money, or cuts. There have been no

cutbacks for the purpose of saving money. What I said was very clear, that we

re-organized the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. Number one,

we do not need as many depots in this Province as we did years ago. Because of

the new equipment we do not need as many mechanics around the Province. With the

five-year warranty on the trucks we take them to the supplier of the new

equipment. Therefore, the total re-organization of the department caused the

lay-offs of some mechanics. The decisions have been made and the decisions are

standing within the department.

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

Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: I say, Mr. Speaker, that the total

disorganization of the department is costing the taxpayers of this Province a

lot of money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Several times this year we have heard the

minister talk about the new machinery that his department has on the highways in

this Province. He just did so a few minutes ago.

Just last week, I came across a sand truck broken down on the

side of the road in my district. When I asked the driver about the problem he

said, one problem is that the truck is fourteen years old. The two mechanics I

talked about in my first question have worked 131 overtime hours in two weeks. I

cannot imagine that these mechanics are working on new equipment; they have to

be working on the antiques. I would like to ask the minister: What percentage of

the vehicles on the road are under warranty with the companies that they were

bought from, and what indeed are no longer serviced by warranty but are serviced

by mechanics in his department?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, let me give an example of what

is taking place, regardless of all the complaints that are coming from the hon.

House of Assembly about the kind of a mess we have in this Province. I will read

a paragraph of a letter I received in the mail today: `During the last

fifty-eight years, I have driven over 2 million miles in every kind of weather

and road conditions to be experienced in Newfoundland, and without any fear of

contradiction, on a consistency basis, I have never seen it better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, on a

supplementary.

MR. MANNING: There are two things I can say about that,

Mr. Speaker. One, I would like to know what airline the writer of that letter

works with. I would also like to know if the minister does a better job of

answering his letters than he does answering the questions that I have asked.

It has been brought to my attention that indeed a fair amount

of mechanical repairs of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation

vehicles are now being carried out in private garages throughout the Province

while mechanics are being laid off and sent home. I ask the minister: Is this

part of a plan of this government to privatize the Department of Works, Services

and Transportation?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not

getting the information he is quoting there from some of his colleagues sitting

close to him, because I can tell you, the information is not correct.

We will privatize any part of the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation, in line with government's policy, that we can. What

the hon. member just stated is incorrect. We are not taking the trucks to

private garages as a part of privatization. If we are going to privatize it, we

will privatize it in an orderly fashion. We are taking trucks to garages when it

is necessary to take them to a private garage; whether they be under warranty or

for whatever reason, we will do that. We will do it where it is necessary for

efficiency and for service.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

It is my understanding that a solution used to prevent

oxidization of seal pelts, known as `anti-yellow', is produced and only made

available by a company in Norway. I ask the minister if he or his department

have any thoughts or intentions of producing a similar product here in this

Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I could not hear the second or third word that you said.

Would you repeat that, please, the early part of the question?

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, my question was to the

minister and it read: It is my understanding that a solution used to prevent

oxidization of seal pelts, known as `anti-yellow', is produced and only made

available by a company in Norway. I ask the minister if he or his department

have any thoughts or intentions of producing a similar product here in this

Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Member for Humber Valley would like for me to

go into a tirade as to what antioxidants means.

Anyhow, yes, indeed, there is such a product that prevents

the oxidation of long-chain fatty acids in seal pelts. The product is, indeed,

made in Norway, and at this point in time, with the development of our sealing

industry where it is right at this present time, no, there has not been any

consideration to start making the product here in Newfoundland, but I am not

closing the door there.

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

a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Report of the Royal

Commission brought forward on seals back in 1986, the Malouf Report, indicated

at that time their concern of having this antioxidant made available only from a

foreign country. I ask the minister if he shares the commission's concern, and

if so, what has his department done over the past ten years in order to correct

this situation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture has done a

tremendous amount over the last ten years to set the groundwork and the

framework in place to once again enter into a seal fishery. As hon. members on

both sides of this House know, the department has done a great deal in

developing markets and so on. If that particular antioxidant that you are

referring to, Sir, is the most efficient - and I will say this very cautiously -

if it is the most efficient antioxidant to use in the future tanning process and

preparation of the hides, then indeed, this Province will look at the potential

of establishing a production facility here, but I would caution you and say that

in the last ten years many new antioxidants have come on the market, and I would

like to look at all of them and determine which one is most efficient.

Thank you.

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

a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister: Why should Norway or

any other country hold our fishermen here in this Province hostage in purchasing

their seal products, because this one particular item is available only from

this foreign country?

I ask the minister if he would immediately move to see if we

can produce something here in this Province, something that would be acceptable

to the meat of the seal as well as the pelt, and ask if he would move on it

immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me assure this hon. House, and let me assure this

Province, that this government will not let any country hold it hostage to the

development of the great seal industry that we have here to develop in the

future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology. As we know, Marine Atlantic and the Federal Government have

announced plans to begin a process to look at the possibilities of privatizing

the Newfoundland Dockyard in terms of employee takeover.

I have two questions for the minister. In view of the fact

that the Provincial Government has a large stake in terms of the investment in

the synchrolift, is the Provincial Government or anybody from your department

involved in that process and, if so, could you explain how? The second question:

Should an employee takeover become a real possibility, is the Provincial

Government willing to look seriously at, or grant EDGE status to the new

operation?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my hon.

friend back and thank him for his questions. The first question, which is a good

question, is, is there any -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Is that answer satisfactory?

The first part of his question was whether or not there is

anybody involved. I can tell him that I have been personally involved. In fact,

I met with the manager of the Dockyard yesterday morning, and last week, in

Ottawa, I had the opportunity to spend a little over an hour with Winston Baker,

who is leading the charge for the Federal Government with respect to the

employee takeover.

MR. ROBERTS: He goes to Ottawa all the time.

MR. FUREY: That was one of the reasons I was in Ottawa;

the other was to deal with the Marystown Shipyard, on which I hope we will have

more positive news in the next little while.

The other part of the question I think the gentleman asked

was whether or not it would meet the requirements for the EDGE status. I can

only say that they would have to make application, but I would say at first

blush that I would not think the Dockyard would make the EDGE status, simply

because, if he recalls, under clause 4 of that legislation there is what is

called a competition clause and how would you deal with giving one tax

preference in St. John's when in Marystown they would not have that preference,

or at Bull Arm, or ASIL in Port aux Basques, or any of these other large metal

fabrication yards. I would not discount it but I would say the odds are very

much against having EDGE status because of that competition clause.

At the officials level, the deputy minister has been having

some meetings with senior management at the Dockyard. I personally have been

involved with Mr. Baker and I have met with Mr. Apostolidis on a number of

occasions.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period is over.

Petitions

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of a

large number of people in St. John's Centre and surrounding area, 1743 people,

mostly from downtown St. John's but some from other parts of St. John's and also

some who came in from other areas of the Province and happened to run into the

petition. The prayer of the petition has to do with housing:

WHEREAS many hundreds of low income families and individuals

in St. John's are housed in dwellings, apartments and bedsitting rooms that are

unfit or unsafe because they are cold, leaking, poorly floored, constitute

serious fire hazards or are plagued with mice, fleas and sometimes rats and

ants;

WHEREAS there is also insufficient housing appropriate for

persons with disabilities, single persons, senior citizens or small families;

WHEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador be requested to initiate immediately a multi-million dollar housing

development program with several components. For example, the advancement of

funds to home owners and landlords to upgrade their properties to acceptable

standards and to make them accessible. The demolition of houses that cannot

feasibly be repaired with home owners provided a house for a house under low

repayment conditions. The expropriation of landlord owned houses that cannot

feasibly be repaired and their replacement with appropriate housing built by

government for rental purchase by residents.

Mr. Speaker, there is a desperate need for housing in St.

John's, a desperate need for low income families. I want first to congratulate

the federal government for extending the RRAP program for another year. The RRAP

program, I might mention for the benefit of the Member for Burin - Placentia

West, was terminated by the pervious federal government and was reinstated by

the Chrtien government for two years, $100 million over a two year period and

now they have extended it for a third year. It is not enough, I agree with him,

it is not enough. We would like to have a lot more but given the present fiscal

realities it is certainly more than they planned to do this year because they

were planning to cut it out. So we are grateful for that.

I also want to thank the people who participated in the

petition. The churches who placed them in the back of the churches, the people

from Emmaus House, the Gathering Place and Emmanuel House and the people

who attended the public meetings that we have been holding. I want to thank hon.

members opposite and on this side of the House for supporting the need for

housing in St. John's in the private members' petition that I presented in this

House on May 10, 1995. St. John's desperately needs a program to replace the

housing, most of which was thrown up after the Great Fire of July 8, 1892. A lot

of that is still there and it needs to be replaced. There is a desperate need.

The fire hazards in downtown are abysmal. We met recently

with the fire department and they are really afraid of the problem in downtown.

We saw it several years ago when we had that Harvey Road fire, it is still

there. The menace is still there. Houses need to be made more fire proof then

they are. A lot of houses are not properly insulated as far as heat is

concerned. Many houses are leaky and have to be re-roofed so that people can

live in them comfortably. Many people in downtown St. John's are unable to

secure any fire insurance at all which indicates the sad state of the housing in

many parts. So what has to be done, I believe, we have to have a government

program, a plan to replace all that bad housing. We just cannot gut it out and

replace it with commercial property. What we have to do is have family owned

dwellings as much as possible so that we give a stability to the area and we

also have to have good rental properties for people who want to rent.

They tell me in the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing that

there are 1,300 names looking for social housing. Families, single persons who

need small accommodation, accommodation for disabled people and I believe that

we have to look in our budgets at new ways of handling this problem. One way is

for the government to build new houses, as we have been doing. New housing, new

apartment buildings and so on, infill or whatever.

Now, that costs a fair amount of money because in addition to

building them -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

DR. KITCHEN: Just a few more minutes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister have leave?

By leave.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, very much.

We need, I believe, to have new thoughts about how to handle

this problem because in addition to building we also have to perhaps subsidize

the low incomes of the people who cannot pay the full amount of rent. Perhaps

what we need to do is convert some of the non-profit housing that is presently

available in St. John's and in other parts perhaps, but mostly in St. John's,

some of it, not all of it but some of it, so that we can make the units

available and that will be cheaper. At 25 per cent rent, even if we keep that,

or 30, whatever we want to do, that will make some units available for people

without having to build any new ones.

Another way to do it is to subsidize private landlords

because there are some landlords out there with accommodation and sometimes

government pays senior citizens, they pay 25 per cent to be accommodated in a

private senior citizens residence, and we have it for other than non-seniors as

well. I can see that we could subsidize, pick out some good private buildings

that people have and say, alright, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing will assign

the people to these buildings and we will pay 75 per cent of the rent and the

other person will pay 25 per cent of the rent. That will mean that you will not

have to build new things. We will get more value for the money and we would also

be able to control the kind of accommodation that people have to live in,

because right now some people are living in very bad accommodations.

I am requesting, on behalf of the people in this petition,

now that the federal government has done part of its part, I would like very

much for the provincial government in the Budget to put some money into housing.

The people of St. John's Centre who signed this petition will be looking at the

next upcoming Budget and will be directing me as to whether I should support

that Budget or not.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, it my pleasure to support the

petition presented by the Member for St. John's Centre concerning the need for

government programs to increase the quality of housing in the St. John's area,

and indeed not just the St. John's area but throughout the Province. It is

particularly notable in the city where fewer individuals own their own homes and

must rely on rental accommodation. Anyone who represents a St. John's district

knows that housing is probably one of the most persistent and ongoing problems

that residents face. Obtaining quality accommodations at affordable prices is

very difficult for people of little means.

The Social Services Department takes very little

responsibility for ensuring the quality of housing other than to approve or not

approve particular locations. They do not play any active role in obtaining

proper housing for people, and as anyone knows basic housing, a decent, warm,

affordable place to live, other than food and clothing, is one of the most basic

requirements of a healthy life and in fact it is regarded as a human right.

We have had tremendous changes in St. John's over the last

number of years. Big changes had been made to the housing stock in the late 60s

and early 70s when some of those RRAP programs and neighbourhood improvement

programs were developed, and there were significant changes made. New housing

developments were created in Virginia Park and other parts of St. John's to

provide housing for people but the problem persists due to increase in

population in St. John's, sometimes people moving in from other parts of the

Province and also new families forming or new accommodations being required.

Boarding houses are a particular problem, people with rooming

houses and renting rooms, often illegally, and people who have no other

alternative are forced to live in these kinds of accommodations, so the need is

there. It is a basic and fundamental need and I think it is time the government

played a significant role in trying to resolve it.

The Member for St. John's Centre has suggested some creative

approaches and I think that all these need to be looked at. Rental accommodation

alone is not enough. There should be some form of assisted home ownership, Mr.

Speaker, whereby people are enabled to afford accommodation, and as owners or

potential owners by virtue of some program people take a particular pride in

their accommodations. There have been some successful programs. The one that is

co-shared by the city, the non-profit housing, provides excellent accommodation,

but it is only for a certain number of people and a certain segment of the

income level.

There is a much more basic need for people to have proper

housing alternatives available to them. The waiting lists for the Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing Corporation are lengthy and people are always looking to

where they are on the list and how soon can they get accommodation. I know that

the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation has made significant

improvement in some of its own housing in the last number of years. Improvements

to Buckmaster's Circle for example, no doubt at significant cost, have made a

great improvement not only in the look but also in the quality of the

accommodation that is available there. You have changes now being made on

Livingstone Street and other housing areas. Co-op housing is another alternative

that has been cut out by the federal government but other programs ought to be

considered in that area as well.

There needs to be creative solutions but there also needs to

be a commitment. I think it is not enough for the government to get in the House

RRAP. We need to have some commitment from the provincial government to

participate as well. We do know of course that there are significant fiscal

difficulties that this Province faces but the basic housing needs of the people

of this Province have got to be given the very highest of priority in government

actions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I too look forward to the next Budget and ask

the minister to respond to this real need.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Yes, very briefly, Mr. Speaker. I want to say

sincerely, I want to congratulate the Member for St. John's Centre. I think in

the past couple of years the hon. member has done a tremendous amount of work in

his district and he does make a good, reasonable point in regards to the housing

situation especially in his district, but I suppose all over the City of St.

John's.

I have to say to the House that we do in Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation take a certain amount of responsibility for the

government's policy as it relates to housing, but the hon. member also knows

that rules and regulations governing housing mostly come under the municipality

when it comes to fire regulations and living standards and so on. In his case

the City of St. John's would have to take a certain amount of responsibility for

accepting the fact that according to him and some people some of these places

are really not inhabitable.

I have to say that we as a government support these comments

and these initiatives. For me to stand and say that we as a government would

initiate a program next year which would include millions of dollars of funding

towards housing, the hon. member, and I think everyone in this House realizes,

that I'm not in a position to do that. We are not at the present time. I have to

I guess in the next few days, and my staff, evaluate what the new RRAP or the

introduction of the continuation of RRAP will mean and what it will cost the

hon. government.

But I will say to the hon. member and members of this House

that by the time we are ready to go into the budgetary process for next year we

will have made by that time a presentation outlining some ideas that we have in

regards to a continuing of a housing program in this Province. What magnitude I

can't say at this particular time.

I do want to finish by saying congratulations to the hon.

member, and I think he is doing a wonderful job. I'm hearing from people in his

area and around the St. John's area commending him for what he is doing in

trying to help the homeless and the people of the Province who are in dire need

of decent, adequate housing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 140 people in

the District of St. Mary's - The Capes. The prayer of the petition is similar to

many I have presented in the House this session, and this is the last one, I

believe. The prayer of the petition is as follows:

To the House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador;

Whereas the Janeway Child Health Centre has served the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador and their children for more than twenty-five years

as the only acute care children's hospital; and

whereas the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador show their support for the Janeway by contributing

millions of dollars every year to enhance the services provided by the

children's hospital; we, the undersigned, support the continuation of a

stand-alone children's hospital to provide quality health care for the children

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this is one of the many

petitions I have presented on behalf of the people of St. Mary's - The Capes on

this important issue. Over the past year or so, we have heard the plans of the

Minister of Health and the Government of this Province to rearrange the health

care system, and part of that rearrangement is to move the Janeway up and

adjacent to the Health Sciences Centre. This has certainly created some major

concerns as we listened just, I believe it was, last week, when the Member for

St. John's East presented a petition with over 50,000 names on it from

Newfoundlanders throughout the Province who are concerned, and I, myself, have

presented, I believe, upwards of over 1,000 names now from St. Mary's - The

Capes on this important issue.

The reason people are concerned about it, the reason they are

giving me, is that they are concerned that the feeling that is felt at the

Janeway Hospital now by parents who bring their children there, and indeed, by

the children themselves, is that it is a hospital that is designed for and

catering to children, and children only.

While we know that we are on fiscal restraint in the

Province, and that the government has to work under extreme circumstances

sometimes to get the most use and the most value for the dollars they spend,

there has to be a concern that the children of our Province are definitely being

treated with the utmost care and in the proper way. And I believe that down at

the Janeway Children's Centre, of which I have had the experience of bringing my

own two children there over the past number of years on a couple of occasions, I

believe there is a feeling at the Janeway that it is no doubt a full-time

children's hospital, and it certainly creates an atmosphere when you walk inside

the door. It certainly gives the parents of the children a comfortable feeling

when you walk inside the doors of the Janeway. And I guess the concern is that

once this new centre is put up adjacent to the Health Sciences Centre, where it

is close to an adult hospital, that this situation with the children's hospital

will evaporate in time.

It seems now that the petitions that have been placed on the

Table of the House of Assembly by many, many thousands of Newfoundlanders are,

in one sense, going unheard. It seems the minister is still planning on making

the move to a building adjacent to the Health Sciences Centre, so I guess all we

can ask now is that the minister, in his wisdom, and I ask his department, to

take into consideration the concerns of parents and children in the Province,

and make sure that the plans to put a new building next to the Health Sciences

Centre, will make it to definitely be a children's wing to itself, a place

where, when you walk in there, you recognize that it is for children, and

children only.

I believe that we have to maintain what is at the Janeway,

even if it is now going to be in another building; I think that is a foregone

conclusion. I think we have to try our utmost to maintain that feeling of a

children's hospital within the walls of the new centre as it has been at the

Janeway.

Mr. Speaker, as I touched on before, I had the opportunity to

bring my own two children to the Janeway for operations shortly after they were

born, and the staff and the nurses, the doctors, the complete staff of the

Janeway, were second to none, and I believe we will maintain that whether they

are in the Janeway or some other building. But I go back to what the purpose of

this petition is, and that is to create a children's hospital. Whether that is

in the building down in Pleasantville, or wherever, I think it is very important

that we maintain the feeling of a children's hospital within the walls of this

new centre.

I put forward this petition today on behalf of these

residents, because it is a concern of the residents of my district. One of the

`whereases' in the petition refers to the millions of dollars that have been

raised to help improve the facilities at the Janeway. I, myself, have taken

part

in many functions that have raised dollars for the Janeway Hospital, and I am

sure that all districts of the Province have, when we look at the telethon on an

annual basis. Mr. Speaker, these dollars that have come in from my district are

being followed up today by this petition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MANNING: - that the people of the Province and indeed

the people of St. Mary's - The Capes want to keep a stand-alone hospital for the

children of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support my colleague regarding the Janeway

Hospital. The last day I spoke on a petition, I didn't get an opportunity to

tell the minister - I didn't get leave - so I will start with that today I say

to the minister, on what I support on the re-organization here and what I said

on June 29.

I said, I support -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the minister asked me, what did I say

and I will tell the minister, he is interested in this thing. I said, I support

consolidation of services, we are going to get efficiencies, eliminate

maintenance costs, overhead costs so we have more dollars to use in direct care

- I support that, I stated that. If we can have extra departments opened, when

people leave work, come in in the nighttime using the same facilities for longer

periods, I support it. I support other diagnostic testing over long periods

whether it is in the one facility or under one roof or wherever it is. These are

things I support. And at the time - the minister, too; I think the minister was

in the same building there - I said: The record in the past, I have not seen

fulfilled, commitments they set in the past. It remains to be seen if what they

are indicating really happens. I said: I will reserve judgement and see if that

will happen.

Now, I don't support, I say to the minister - and I have said

this: I do not support combining operating rooms; I say to the minister, I don't

support for adults and kids, the one operating room; the minister said they

would be sharing those. I don't support the one emergency department. When you

are talking about delivering an anaesthetic to older kids, young kids, adults,

delivering dosage of medication, the margin of error is very great. And I know

of instances and an instance of a family member who was given ten times a dosage

which almost resulted in death in an emergency department and the incident goes

back to about fifteen years ago, fourteen, fifteen years, numerous instances.

There is too high a risk when you mix adults and children in emergency

departments in operating rooms. If it is an MRI or if it's x-ray and things of

this nature, if we can combine to get efficiency in the system, Mr. Speaker, I

am very supportive of sharing facilities to get extra dollars in the system.

Now we have a Rehab Centre that was announced for closing all

under moving into the Janeway hospital now, and the transition, I understand, is

supposed to take place by March 31. And just recently now, with the latest

announcements that $80 million must be found, possibly within the health care

system, if it does, the bulk has to come from institution budgets across the

Province, there is going to be a very serious problem in meeting the plans that

are set out by re-organizing and relocating, especially when it is going to take

- and I think the minister has made some reference, I don't know if the remark

is attributed to him, but the general remark to the health care corporation

anyway, is about $100 million might be needed now in capital expenditures to put

everything together, to shut down from the Janeway, the Grace and to move them

together there. That is a fair amount of money when we have a budget total net

expenditure of about $800 million. We have revenues, of course, coming into the

system, too. So, I find it is going to be very difficult to do. I cannot support

emergency departments with kids and adults in there and anybody within the

profession will tell you and the professionals there will tell you that that is

not a good mix.

Mixing young and old people alike in certain services can be

a deadly mix. Other services can be delivered, reasonably efficiently if we can

extend the use of certain equipment that is there beyond the regular working day

to accommodate working people and so on.

There is some potential for improvements in the system,

combining human resources, whether it is the laundry service, whether it is

certain laboratory testing - and numerous areas of services can be combined. I

say they can be combined with certain efficiencies but we have to look at, in

light now of shifting budgetary demands and the budgetary demands are shifting

on an ongoing basis; they shifted since August and this Fall, with the Budget we

had to find $60 million.

Now, we are going to be looking for nearly a quarter of a

billion dollars over the next couple of years, and with the major cuts to come

in the health care system, I have severe reservations whether we are going to

get what was announced on June 29; on what the department and what the health

care corporation have been advocating since, I have severe doubts whether we are

going to get what the people thought they were going to get delivered under this

system, and that remains to be seen. I said at the time, I will wait patiently

to see if they will fulfill what they stated to us. We are going to see, and I

would be the first to say if they do, if it does happen - or if it does not, I

will certainly be first to indicate they haven't fulfilled what they said they

were going to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I will just have a few words on the petition that was

presented and the comments by my hon. health critic. I am not setting a very

good example as Minister of Health, I have to tell you, because I'm dying with

the 'flu myself.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) talking too much with other

people. I told you to be careful.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I guess what goes around comes around,

my friend, the Member for Grand Bank would say.

The comments made by the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes

and the comments made regarding the Janeway by the Member for Ferryland are

really comments that to some degree - some of the comments are very hard to

disagree with. In fact, one can't disagree with them. When one reflects on the

level of service, the quality of care, the commitment of staff, the magnificent

work done by the Foundation of the Janeway Hospital in raising money and public

awareness, when one comments upon and commends all of the good work that has

gone on in the facility and by others around the facility, certainly no one can

disagree with that. I concur with them in saying that the Janeway has been a

first-class paediatric facility, that the Foundation has done a good job in

raising money to help it out.

Both members basically said today, as best I could read into

their comments, that providing we do what was announced in a proper way, they

would be able to support it without any problem. That was really to locate the

services from a building that is obsolete to a new site on the Prince Philip

Drive adjacent to, contiguous with, and as part of the operation of the Health

Sciences Centre. As I have said before in the House, I want to refer to it

again, because it is a near-perfect example of what can be done and what, in

fact, has been done in health care in terms of moving facilities.

If anyone has the chance or has had the chance to go over and

visit the H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Clinic, they would find there, by national

standards and by national acceptance of what is being done there, probably the

finest cancer clinic providing the best cancer care of any clinic in Canada for

cancer patients. What is happening over there in terms of the relocation of that

facility is really a reflection and a mirror of what will happen when the

Janeway is moved.

We will have dedicated paediatric space, we will share

facilities and services that are appropriate to share, and we will cause to be

created dedicated services where they are appropriate to be created that will be

exclusively for the use of children. I want again to assure the hon. members,

both of them, that it is this government's commitment to ensure that we will

cause the transition to take place, cause the re-establishment of a new Janeway

building to happen over at Prince Philip Drive, so that when it does happen it

will be something that the people of Newfoundland will be proud of, will be

pleased with, and, at the end of the day, will be better served by.

We can do what we have committed ourselves to do because we

have already done it, Mr. Speaker, in the relocation of the cancer clinic over

there at that site. I can only commend the hon. members for their positive

attitude toward the thing, given the fact that we do it right. My commitment to

them and to the people of the Province is to ensure that it is done right and

that, at the end of the day, paediatric services in this Province will be better

and more appropriately delivered than ever before.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it will become apparent as we

go through the afternoon whether we, in fact, will adjourn today or tomorrow. We

are largely in the hands of the Opposition. It is all the same to me. I am here

tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: To my friend, the Member for Grand Bank, I

just said that it will depend largely on the Opposition whether we adjourn today

or tomorrow.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Definitely tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Definitely tomorrow, and perhaps today. But

I understand that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Pardon?

MR. SULLIVAN: Put `Chuck' there and we will finish today.

MR. ROBERTS: That is a very tempting offer, I say to my

friend, the Member for Ferryland, to ask my friend, the Member for St. Barbe to

take over, and we will finish today. That would be very tempting from a whole

host of points of view. What I was going to say to the House is that we will

first of all ask the House to go into committee and deal with the four bills

which are at committee stage. There are some amendments we need to deal with,

and we will then call third readings and start working along. The last two to be

dealt with will be the Hydro bill and the Boundaries bill, and when we finish

that we will invite His Honour to attend upon us. My understanding is that His

Honour may be pleased to give assent to such bills as we have passed through

third reading at that stage, which I am confident will be everything standing on

the Order Paper to be passed.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, could we first begin with

Order 33 and then we will go on to Orders 34, 36, and 37. These are the ones my

hon. friend for Grand Bank and I discussed behind the Chair yesterday. No

surprises. There are amendments to the first order which is the Limitations

Bill.

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Limitations."

(Bill

No. 38)

On motion, Clause 1, carried.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: I have a number of amendments and I think my

hon. colleague across the way has a copy. I do not need to read them all. I will

just table them. It is to Bill 38, a number of amendments to Bill 38.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, if I might?

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

MR. ROBERTS: I think most of these amendments are

relatively straightforward but I will address each, and if the committee wish

they can deal with each when we come to them. The first is to Clause 8 so unless

any member has an amendment to offer to Clauses 2 through 7 then perhaps you

could call those and when we get to Clause 8 I will address the amendment moved

by my friend for Carbonear.

On motion, Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive, carried.

Shall Clause 8 carry?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to

Clause 8. It is one of the ones moved by my friend for Carbonear, the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the Registrar General of the Province.

The amendment requires just a brief comment, I think. It is to repeal, or to

strike out, subclause 2 and to replace it with the following. My friend for

Humber Valley and my learned friend for St. John's East have copies of the text,

but for other members of the committee let me read it.

'Notwithstanding Sections 5,6,7,9, and 22, where misconduct

of a sexual nature has been committed against a person and that person was (

a) under the care or authority, (

b) financially, emotionally, physically, or

otherwise dependent upon, or - and the `or' is important because it shows these

are in the alternative, or (

c) a beneficiary of a fiduciary relationship with

another person, organization or agency, there shall be no limitation period and

an action arising from that sexual misconduct may be brought at any time.

Now, three comments, Mr. Chairman. First of all we are here

dealing with civil proceedings only, of course. There is no statute of

limitations on criminal code offenses but this bill has no bearing on criminal

matters. We are dealing with civil proceedings, including, for example, the

actions brought against, among others, the government as a result of the matters

that went on at Mount Cashel, in some cases twenty or twenty-five years past.

The principle is one which the House endorsed at second reading.

Secondly, we have added the phrase; `that there is no

limitation protection extended to a person who is a beneficiary of a fiduciary

relationship.' That came as a result of a discussion in the Standing Committee

and I think is a good amendment and we are prepared to accept it. It would mean

for example, the government which could arguably be the beneficiary of a

fiduciary relationship - it is the other way around, my friend says. The

beneficiary of a fiduciary relationship would be the young person who would say,

in my example, be the director of child welfare that the government would not be

enabled to shelter behind a limitation for it nor ought we to be, so we are

quite prepared to move it forward.

We have dropped, members will note, a phrase in the previous

one, `has charge of the other person' and the reason we dropped that is when we

began to look at the amendment proposed by the committee we came to the view -

we being myself with the advice from the drafters and the lawyers dealing with

this matter - that sub (

a) under the care or authority includes anybody who

would also fall under (c), has charge of the other person. So dropping that

latter phrase, `has charge of the other person' has no substantive effect. With

that said I commend the amendment to the committee, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a brief

comment on that.

Clearly the effect of the amendment is to not only make sure

that the actual individual's specific perpetrator of sexual misconduct but in

fact those persons, organizations or agencies that have responsibility for an

individual are also not sheltered by a limitation period. The reworking of that

provision to ensure that was done I believe by the advisers to the Minister of

Justice and then the idea of including clause (

c) as a beneficiary of a

fiduciary relationship was for the purpose of ensuring that the category of

fiduciaries was not limited by the words that were used there but in fact, was

using a legal phraseology that has received recognition in the Supreme Court of

Canada in one or two cases that deal with the notion of trust relationships or

fiduciary relationships. So I think that the amendment here is a salutary one

and is in keeping with the intention of government not to shelter individuals or

organizations in circumstances such as are discussed here where there is sexual

misconduct. By the very nature of it, it gives rise to long term consequences

and consequences that may not be apparent for many, many years.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I never attended

the meeting on the committee. I think my friend from St. John's East was there

at that committee. Was that one brought up at that - that particular clause was

discussed. However, I did have some reservations on that one from the outset. I

had marked here that only an individual, not an organization and a trust

relationship so to speak because everything was in clause 8(2) talking about a

person who commits a misconduct of a sexual nature and then it goes on to say,

in a position of trust or authority with respect to that other person - person

again in

Section B and person again in

Section C. In the last part of it the

person against whom the sexual misconduct and so on, all person, nothing to do

with an agency or organization or anything else, all in the singular. So now

this has been addressed in this particular amendment. So that covers this

section and the concerns that I had with it, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 8 as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 10, the hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) amendment, the third last word

in clause 9 is, `has' it should be `had'. It is simply a misprint but if perhaps

by consent we could simply amend it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It should be `had'.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, it should be `had'.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion clause 10, as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 11, carried.

Clause 12.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: We propose to move, and I believe again this

is a suggestion of the committee - I think perhaps the Law Society raised the

point when they appeared before the committee - we propose to move, as a new sub

(5) in this clause 12 - this is one of the amendments moved by my friend from

Carbonear - the wording that now appears as sub (4) of clause 14. The reason for

that is the wording of clause 4 of sub (14) simply is in the wrong place and it

could cause some difficulty if left there, so I would move that we add a new

subclause (5) to clause 12, which says: Notwithstanding paragraph 12.(2)(b), an

action shall not prejudice or detrimentally affect the purchaser who purchases

for value in good faith property which is the subject of that action.

I so move, Sir.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion clause 12, as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 14.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: The amendment to clause 14, Mr. Chairman, is

to delete subclause (4).

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion clause 14, as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 15.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is an amendment to subclause 15, and that is

consequential. It is to amend subclause (15)(1) by adding after the number 13,

the words and figures, "and subsection 14(3)". That simply, I think, is a

clarification. It is not a new principle, but it makes it clear that the

ten-year limitation period would not run as against a person under a disability.

Again, I was not at the committee meeting but my recollection

is that is a point that was raised either by a member of the committee or by a

witness before them, so I would move it, Sir.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion clause 15, as amended, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Limitations."

(Bill No. 38)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with

amendments, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 34, Bill No. 47, "An Act Respecting

Provincial Offences".

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of

amendments to this as well. Perhaps my friend, the Minister of Education, will

be good enough to move them. I could then undertake the burden of explaining

them. I cannot move them because it is my bill, but again my friend from Humber

Valley and my learned friend from St. John's East have been provided with copies

of them and I would be happy to address them when we come to them.

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, the amendment, paragraph

2(1)(

c) of Bill 47 is amended by deleting the words "this Act" and by

substituting the word and Roman numeral "Part II".

Clause 37 of Bill 47 is amended by striking out, wherever it

occurs, the word "justice" and by substituting the word "judge".

Clauses 43 and 44 of the bill are struck out and the

following substituted:

"Minister may order inquiry

43. Where a person dies and there is reasonable cause to

suspect that that person died under a circumstance referred to in

section 5, 6,

7 or 8 of the Investigation of Fatalities Act and the minister is of the opinion

that it is necessary for the protection of the public interest or in the

interest of public safety that an inquiry be held, the minister may order a

judge to hold an inquiry."

Clauses 45 to 56 of Bill No. 47 are renumbered as clauses 44

to 55.

Bill No. 47 is further amended by renumbering clause 54 as

subclause 54(1) and adding immediately after subclause (1) the following:

"

(2) Where this Act comes into force before the Fatalities

Investigation Act comes into force,

section 43 of this act shall not apply, but

sections 23 and 24 of the

Summary Proceedings Act shall continue to apply,

notwithstanding the repeal of that Act, until the Fatalities Investigation Act

comes into force."

MR. ROBERTS: That is the problem.

MR. DECKER: You don't want the explanatory note, do you?

MR. ROBERTS: I will deal with that.

MR. DECKER: You will deal with the explanatory note.

I so move, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, to those who wonder what we

are up to, let me say that when we come to the sections I will deal with them.

The problem being addressed by these amendments is the one that my friend for

Ferryland just adverted to. The problem is the two bills, the fatalities act and

the provincial offences act, will come into effect at different times so we have

to have a bridging mechanism in place. But let me deal with that at the

appropriate time. Perhaps we could carry on and when we come to each amendment I

will address it on its merits and try to convince the Committee to adopt the

amendments.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a copy of the

amendments to this particular act. The one I want to -

MR. ROBERTS: Let's (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, we will deal with it the same as the

others (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 2.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: The amendment to clause 2, Mr. Chairman,

2(1)(

c) we want to amend by deleting the words "this Act" and putting in the

words "Part II." Because the term judge being defined to include a justice of

the peace applies only to

Part II, and if the Committee will permit, that is the

part that deals with tickets. There is a role for a justice of the peace in the

way in which we administer the tickets. So for the purposes of that part only

the word judge will include a justice of the peace.

I move the amendment, Sir.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 2(1)(

c) as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 37.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is an

amendment to this, and that is reflecting the same point as I made earlier.

Clause 37 is the situation where a person who is liable to pay a fine - and I

believe my friend for St. John's East made some comment on this during the

second reading debate. The bill now says a justice. We want to change that to a

judge, which of course means a judge of the Provincial Court.

The amendment is that wherever the word "justice" appears in

clause 37 it be struck and be replaced with the word "judge". The principle is

that only a judge may extend the time for payment of fine, but the thing is that

a judge may do so if he or she is so minded.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak to

this briefly. I've had some discussions with officials of the Department of

Justice and the Law Clerks to the House as to what do you do about a

circumstance such as one I raised in the House last Friday from a constituent of

mine. The matter was brought to my attention only last Thursday. An individual

who had been in fact incarcerated early last week for failure to pay a fine

which he was unable to pay.

The circumstances themselves are even more unjust when it

appears that the fine was a fine of $125 which was imposed for failure to pay a

$70 school tax assessment which apparently had gone unpaid for a few years. When

the individual was summoned to court to answer to a charge of non-payment of the

school tax he went ahead and paid the school tax but didn't go to court,

assuming he didn't have to once he had paid his school tax, and apparently was

convicted in court and fined $125. Some several years after that, being last

week, he was approached by two members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

who were asking for the $125, of which he was unaware up until that particular

time. The end result was - they gave him a few days to come up with the money,

they weren't ungenerous in that respect - he went and sought legal advice from

Legal Aid and was turned down in an application to try to set aside the fine, or

deal with it legally in some manner or other.

Once that happened, he, having no source of income, went to -

the police came back of course looking for the $125, he didn't have it and so

was taken off to the penitentiary. He served about a day, he served from two

o'clock one day to two o'clock the next, when he was released on some sort of

temporary absence, but he referred to it as a form of house arrest; he was told

that he was not allowed to leave his premises, to leave his home until Sunday

afternoon at two o'clock, it's the house that he was boarding in and this

individual, Mr. Chairman, who has no means of paying this fine, I note that

throughout the act and most of

part 3 of the act deals with how to recover

fines, what actions can be taken to collect the fines, treatment of it as a

judgement, they can seize the goods and chattels of a person, they can garnishee

their wages, they can do any number of things to actually collect money from

someone who owes fines, but the only people who will end up being put in jail

for non-payment of fines, Mr. Chairman, are people who can't afford to actually

pay the fines.

Now, there may be some circumstances - I should correct that,

I suppose - there may be some circumstances, if they are fined $500 or two days

in jail or the alternative, there may be a number of individuals who will say:

Well, it is better for me to go to jail for two days than to pay $500, because

it would take me more than two days to earn that, and as the Member for

Ferryland said, get fed in the process. I don't know how well but perhaps get a

few meals as well, so there may be individuals who have done that and I have

known over the course of my practice of law, individuals who have taken the

choice of doing the time rather than paying the fine because it was economical

for them to do so. But there is a difference between that, Mr. Chairman, and a

situation where someone does not want to go to jail, does not want to be treated

as I guess, the equivalent of a debtor's prison, Mr. Chairman.

You don't, particularly in these circumstances, even Revenue

Canada does not put you in jail for non-payment of your taxes, non-payment of

your income tax. Perhaps they should, in some cases, but they don't put you in

jail for non-payment of your taxes and, in fact, sometimes they elect you to

Parliament. But in these circumstances individuals can have their wages

garnisheed, they can have their property taken, etcetera, but they are not put

in jail for non-payment of taxes. Now, this is a little step beyond that where

someone has actually been fined and it is the collection of the fine that is at

stake here.

I guess I would be a little happier if a Justice could deal

with this because Justices of the Peace are a little more common in this

Province. But the minister is now proposing to change to ensure that only

provincial court judges can extend such time. I don't think that

section 37 as a

whole, is adequate to deal with circumstances where someone is unable to pay a

fine.

Section 37 (1) (3), calls upon the judge in this case to make a

determination as to whether or not an application for an extension is likely to

be used to evade payment, and unless he so finds, the Justice shall extend the

time for payment by ordering periodic payments or otherwise.

Now, I don't know what the `otherwise' is, Mr. Chairman. Does

`otherwise' give the Justice an opportunity to extend it indefinitely? Does it

give an opportunity to make periodic payments? It uses the word `shall' here and

it provides for a process whereby the individual is to give evidence under oath

as to his circumstances, I suppose. I think, Mr. Chairman, we need to avoid at

all costs, from a justice point of view, individuals going to jail because they

are unable to pay a fine. We have had recently a case in the provincial court

where an individual was threatened with jail for non-payment of a civil debt, a

debt of several hundred dollars under a small claims procedure, and in the

absence of an appeal that was taken, the individual would have been required to

serve time because he did not pay a debt to another individual, some several

hundred dollars.

Here, we have a similar possibility and, in fact, an actual

example of someone having been incarcerated for non-payment of a fine where he

was unable to pay the fine. This is the kind of injustice, Mr. Chairman, that

has been decried at least from the time of Dickens and probably before. It is

the equivalent of a debtor's prison where someone is put in jail because he

cannot afford to - or is unable to pay a debt.

Now, there may well be individual circumstances where someone

claims to be unable to pay but actually can afford to pay. There may well be

circumstances of that nature, but I do want to say that I am not talking about

this theoretically. I am talking about an actual circumstance that happened

within the last ten days in this Province. This individual was actually

incarcerated at a cost to the state, or to the Province, of more than the $125

fine.

The Province not only incarcerated someone who was unable to

pay a fine,

whereas if it were you or me, Mr. Chairman, we would pay the fine

and fight about it later. If it was a question of an unjust fine or a fine that

was improperly imposed we would pay the fine and fight about it later, or pay

the fine and forget about it, but this was an individual who was forced to go to

jail. We are not talking about abstract legal theory here and we are not talking

about abstract justice, we are talking about real circumstances where, on the

operating day-to-day basis, an individual is approached by police officers and

told he has to come up with the $125 or face incarceration.

I think that has to change, and I am calling on government to

find a way of changing that. I do not think

Section 37, (1), (2), and (3) is

sufficient for that.

Section 38 provides for an alternative under the fine

options program and says that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can establish a

fines options program which says that if an individual is fined a certain amount

of money, instead of paying the fine, he or she can work it off.

Section 38

provides for a system being established in order to do that.

That was invoked after the Federal Government had passed

enabling legislation under the Criminal Code of Canada providing for fine

options programs. I remember back as long as twenty years ago there were fines

options programs in the Province of Alberta, where I happened to reside for the

study of law in the mid-1970s. That was a time when there were many prisoners in

Alberta prisons, and perhaps prisons all over the country, who were there for

the sole reason of non-payment of fines. It was recognized that this was an

injustice, certainly in Alberta, because many of the people who were so

incarcerated were, in fact, native people who were fined for various criminal

offenses and were there because they could not pay the fines.

That injustice led to changes in the Criminal Code which

permitted the fine options program and various provinces established them. I

don't know if this Province has, Mr. Chairman, and it is my belief that people

should not be imprisoned for non-payment of fines unless they are offered an

opportunity to work off their fines through a fine options program and, in fact,

refuse.

This is a fundamental question of social justice. I have an

amendment to bring in which would add after

section 38 a

section 38(1), I guess.

We haven't gotten to that yet. We are still discussing

section 37. I wanted to

say that I don't think it is adequate as it is to deal with the problem by in

fact making it more difficult for a person to get access to someone to extend

the time of payment of fine by saying it shall only be Provincial Court judges

and not justices of the peace. It is making access to that process even more

difficult. So I oppose this amendment and will be voting against it.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, I think that what the hon.

member said - I have some concerns as he does, but I think what I will do is

just move on to

section 38. Because there is something else that I would like to

bring up there that would tie in probably to

section 37. So if we can get past

that particular -

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, we will deal with my hon.

friend, the Member for Humber Valley's concern. If I understand him, he will

raise it on

section 38 and we will deal with his concern then if that is - okay,

fine. The amendment we have moved to

section 37, I think, speaks for itself and

I will say no more about it. If I understood correctly, my friend, the Member

for St. John's East was not objecting to the amendment that I moved.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) harder (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I must, with respect, differ with him, Mr.

Chairman. Because the Provincial Court judges sit - there are twenty-four of

them and they sit widely throughout the Province, and they are widely available.

We don't want to vest in Justices of the Peace who, in many cases, are untrained

- and that is not criticizing them, and that is what they hold themselves out to

be and that is what they are - or our officers of the court. We routinely

appoint - in fact, the only people we appoint routinely as Justice of the Peace

are the clerks and the officers in the court. We don't want to vest in them a

power which we believe is properly vested with the judiciary, namely, the power

to remit fines or to change the terms of payment of fines. For that reason, we

must insist on the amendment, and would ask the Committee to accept it in the

words I put forward.

The other point made by my friend, the Member for St. John's

East -I have some congruence with him and I have some disagreement with him. It

is a difficult problem indeed when somebody cannot pay a fine, and one must

accept the reality, there are people who genuinely cannot pay a fine, or could

pay it only at the price of wreaking hardship upon themselves or upon those for

whom they are financially responsible: family, children, spouses, what have you.

I acknowledge that can happen.

But in many cases, the person who says: I cannot pay a fine,

simply does not want to pay the fine. I don't quarrel with that. The law accepts

that. I don't quarrel with it. A person may say: I would rather have cable

television for three months at $40 or $50 a month than I would pay a $100 or

$150 fine. I don't quarrel with that as a judgement. But we have to be very

careful to make sure that the law is enforceable. It is no good passing a law

and imposing a penalty if we don't impose that penalty and make it stick.

I don't think my friend, the Member for St. John's East is

objecting to the cable television situation. That is a choice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: We could collect that civilly or as we

choose. We are asking the House to give us options. There is a balancing act.

Where one really goes after the people who don't pay fines is where they

persistently don't pay them and are defaulting. Those are the people who are

invited to spend the weekend at Her Majesty's Penitentiary as our guest. My

friend is shaking his head. He may have more knowledge of this stratum of the

law than I do. We are trying to collect fines, we are trying very earnestly, and

I believe very effectively.

The serious problem, in my view, is not with the person who

will not pay a fine as opposed to cannot pay a fine. We have no time, I have no

time, and I suggest the House ought to have no time for somebody who will not

pay the fine. If he or she is not prepared to do so, then it is off the clink

and we will give you what we give in our cuisine, and we will provide you with

the accommodation we provide, and you serve your time and sobeit. Then you have

paid your debt to society, no quarrel.

The problem is with the person who cannot pay the fine, or

can pay it only at unreasonable hardship, and there are such cases - not as many

as one might suspect, but there are some. The law says there is always an

alternative. One can serve time in return. But we are asking another alternative

where, if one can convince a judge - now, you don't need a lawyer to do this.

One of the advantages of the Provincial Court judges is they can be far less

procedure-bound, far less formal, far more approachable in that sense. We don't

go up to the judge directly but go to the clerk and ask to be heard by the

judge. One doesn't need a lawyer.

I have no hesitation in saying that any person in this

Province who cannot afford to pay a fine, or can pay it only at vast and

unreasonable hardship to himself or his family, we should have no hesitation in

going into the Clerk of the court and saying, "May I make an application to

Judge Jones, or the hon. Mr. Jones". There is no special form, you don't need a

lawyer, you don't need any special fancy pleading, just get up and state your

case. We are giving the judge here the power to make such inquiries as he or she

may deem necessary. The person is not compelled to answer. If the judge asks a

question, the person can answer or not as they choose. Then the judge may extend

the time by ordering periodic payments or otherwise, and that is a very broad

grant of power. That could be $1 a week until hell freezes over, if the judge

were so minded and the fine were of that nature.

So, with respect, I must say we cannot accept the suggestion

made by my friend from St. John's East. I would ask the committee to adopt the

amendments I put forward, and if they are adopted to adopt the clause as

amended.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion clause 37, as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 38.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 38 is - this is another amendment, is it, 38(1).

MR. ROBERTS: No, there are no amendments. Clause 38 would

be as in the bill (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well, what was I passed here, 38(1), an

amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair was of the impression that the hon. Member for St.

John's East said he would be introducing an amendment to 38.

MR. HARRIS: If I may, for a moment.

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

MR. HARRIS: I have an amendment proposed to add a new

section after

section 38 - so that is the confusion - 38.1, which reads as

follows, and I say to the Minister of Justice, as this is the one that I

referred him to the other day that I had discussed with the individual in his

department who drafted the legislation, as he suggested, which states as

follows: Notwithstanding any other enactment, no imprisonment in default of

payment of a fine, including a fine under the Criminal Code, payable to the

Crown and right of the Province, shall be imposed unless the person fined is

given the option to pay the fine by means of credit for work performed under a

program established pursuant to

section 38 of this Act, and declines or refuses

to participate in such a program.

Section 38 is the fines option program enabling legislation

to which I referred the committee in discussing

section 37. The fines option

program basically, the Province sets up a credit system to say: Okay, if you

want to pay your fine in cash you can pay it. If you want to go back to the

judge and ask for time to pay, you can do that. If you want to do your time, you

can do that, too - your time in default - but for those of you who cannot pay we

offer you the option of working off your fine in a program established by the

Cabinet under the fine options system.

It is a relatively straightforward provision, Mr. Chairman,

that provides - the enabling legislation is there already in

section 38, and I

believe it is already there under the

Summary of Proceedings Act. It is simply a

matter of establishing a credit system which may be $20 a day for working at

some prescribed task, whether it be picking up litter on the streets or some

other prescribed task under the fine options program. That would take care of

these individuals who the minister says do not want to pay; they can pay but

don't want to pay. Those same individuals are probably those who might not want

to work at a daily rate under a credit system to work off their fines. They are

then given three options. They either pay their fine, they do their time in

jail, or they do their time by doing work. Now, Mr. Chairman, that option is

there for the very reason that incarceration in a jail or prison is something

that we regard as being a severe impact on a person's life.

There are those, Mr. Chairman, who to be incarcerated in a

prison represents to them a terrific humiliation. Depravation of ones personal

freedom by being locked behind bars and held in a jail with no right to leave

and go about your business or be with your family. We are not talking about

criminals here, we are talking about people who have run afoul of provincial -

for the most part, people who have run afoul of provincial pieces of

legislation. Someone in this case, who did not pay their seventy dollar school

tax in 1986, was put in jail last week because he could not pay a $125 fine. We

are talking about the depravation of personal liberty here. Now granted someone

who chooses to work in a fine options program is, to the extent that he or she

takes up the work that is required of him, is to some extent deprived of their

liberty for the period of time that they have to do the work. That is a very

different and perhaps more dignified response then one who is forcibly taken and

thrown behind bars and told: you will not be able to go free until you have

served the default period that was imposed by a judge. The argument may be: well

we don't have a fines option program. We only have the enabling legislation.

That is not a sufficient answer, Mr. Chairman.

I think it is very easy to establish a credit system. The

credit system could be eight hours, seven and-a-half hours or six hours for

every day in default that is imposed for a fine and instead of working out the

default by being in jail at a cost to the taxpayer of $200 or $300 that the

individual would be doing some task imposed under a fine options program through

the parole service or adult probation. It is pretty straightforward, Mr.

Chairman, to give a body the task of assigning work and having a reporting

system. It seems to be relatively straightforward, Mr. Chairman, and if it is

not in place then I don't think that we, as a society, should incarcerate

someone who does not have the means to pay a fine. I think it is time to end the

practice, Mr. Chairman, where it is possible for someone to go to jail because

they are unable to pay a fine. I don't think

Section 37 does it because it

leaves it up to a judge to determine - not whether or not someone should pay a

fine but it leaves it up to a judge to determine whether or not the fine can be

paid in periodic payments. I think there ought to be a provision that ensures

that people don't go to jail who cannot pay a fine unless they are given the

option of working it off through a credit system under

Section 38.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I move the addition of new

Section 38.1 as has been copied to the Table. I am sorry to hear that the

Minister of Justice had not received a copy beforehand. I thought that by giving

it to Mr. Gover, as he suggested, that it would be discussed with him. I was not

aware that he was going to be in Ottawa on Monday and for part of Tuesday but I

did take up a suggestion then on Friday after the House closed, brought a copy

of my amendment to the justice official, the former Attorney General for the

Province who had been asked, I understand, to supervise the preparation of this

legislation. My advise was that technically it was okay but that there may be

obviously politic considerations, that would be up to the minister or up to the

House to consider. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for -

MR. ROBERTS: No. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Humber

East -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: The gentleman from Humber East was

attempting to catch your eye -

AN HON. MEMBER: Humber Valley.

MR. ROBERTS: Humber Valley, I am sorry. - and not only

that, I would like to be heard on the amendment, so my friend from Humber

Valley, I will yield to him if he would like to speak to this clause 38 or to

the amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) 38 (1).

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, sure, or do you want to deal with

the amendment first?

MR. WOODFORD: I will deal with the amendment first.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I -

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

MR. ROBERTS: I have no hesitation in acknowledging that I

suggested to my friend, the learned gentleman from St. John's East, that he

should speak with Mr. Gover - he is one of the lawyers in the civil division in

my department - about it, but I will say that I have not had word from Mr.

Gover. Now, that's not a complaint. I have been away for a bit and I was out of

the office for most of this morning but I have also spoken to a law clerk who is

charged with this bill and there has been no communication back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, this is true but I say to my friend

from Ferryland, Mr. Gover, who of course is known to us all in another context,

that Mr. Gover has become an extraordinarily valuable solicitor. The officials

and those of my colleagues who work with him are very impressed by his legal

work and I won't say, I don't know what the future holds for him, I don't know

what it holds for any of us, but he came into the department winning a

competition in the Public Service Commission, he was the recommended top of the

list and we have always taken the top of the list in my time, and I am not

surprised but I can tell you he has won a sizeable following among his clientele

who are officials and ministers in the government, but anyway, let me come back,

the problem would be the substance of this.

My hon. friend may be ahead of his time and I don't fault his

approach, but this would oblige us administering the system of justice, would

prevent us from collecting on a fine or an imprisonment being imposed in lieu of

a fine unless the person had been offered and turned down a work program. Now,

Mr. Chairman, the weakness of that is we may not be able to offer these work

programs everywhere in this Province, so my hon. friend's amendment, as

well-conceived as it may be and as well-intentioned as it may be, is simply

impractical in my judgement and so I must turn it down.

We do hope to put up in place a work-option program but the

Committee will note - and this was done deliberately and I believe prudently

that we may do this, this is sub 2, we may do it for a portion of the Province

or for the whole Province and that simply reflects the reality. We may be able

to get such a system working here in St. John's or in Corner Brook or in other

places but we may not be able to get it working in Nain or in Fortune Bay or

somewhere else so it is just not practical to adopt the approach moved by my

hon. friend, so with respect, I must ask the Committee to vote against it.

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

MR. WOODFORD: After reading the amendment, Mr. Chairman,

I have concerns especially with regards to including a fine under the Criminal

Code payable to the Crown in right of the Province. It is sort of - and the

member can correct me if I am wrong after - a blanket approach to all fines,

regardless of what they are for, what amounts or what have you. However, Mr.

Chairman, maybe the minister, when he rises, could probably clarify something

for me on this 38 (1) with regards to the bringing in of regulations under 38

(1), it is obvious from this particular

section that government would have the

option, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations establishing a

program to permit the payment of fines by means of credit for work performed

and, for that purpose, may -

Now , in reference to the hon. Member for St. John's East's

amendment, I think that even if you put on the end of that a

section (

d) if you

wish, and just said: If a person fails to comply with sections (a), (

b) or (c),

then a period of imprisonment is in order. If the regulations were brought in

and he did not comply with the regulations that the minister has stated here in

section 38(1), then it is obvious the rest will come into play.

You haven't got to put all this legalese into another

complete section, 38(1). If the minister brought in regulations like he said

here to deal with those top three sections and you just added another section,

(d), to say exactly what I just said now, well then that covers everything. If

you don't pay the fine, well then, like the minister said, be a guest at Her

Majesty's Penitentiary for the weekend or for an extended period of time.

I've given some thought also, and it has been done for a

number of years with regards to the non-payment of fines - and the minister can

probably reply to what I'm saying now when he stands - for motor vehicle

infractions. For instance, if you get a speeding ticket or something like that

and it is not paid -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, exactly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That is what I was wondering right here.

Because a lot of those fines, you know, that is where it hits most. People can't

seem to be able to come up with the $75 ticket when you are nailed by an RNC of

RCMP officer. They say: Oh my, I can't afford that. Two weeks after they get

another one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well then, that could be covered under that

one. A lot of those particular fines, like the member was saying, a $75 fine, or

a $150 fine. There are some people going to get their licence renewed owing $300

and $400 in fines. They have all their points gone in one year. Before they get

their licence that is it. You say: You pay your fine or we give you no licence,

period, you can't drive. That is the worst thing you can do to an individual

today is to deny him or her his or her driver's licence. The minister has to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, and they will come up with the money.

The funny thing about it, they will come up with the money. I bet you the

minister responsible for transportation, if he checked his records, I wouldn't

say there isn't one person last year who was turned down from getting a driver's

licence that - they probably didn't do it that minute, but I would say within a

few days or a couple of weeks they were back, they had the money, and they had

their driver's licence. So a lot of those fines are in that area. Because if it

happens we will say for instance - if you have to get your licence renewed, the

only thing about it now - oh no, that is motor - I think your licence now is

every three years, is it? Or is that your motor vehicle?

AN HON. MEMBER: Your vehicle licence is annual.

MR. WOODFORD: Your vehicle licence is annual, your

driver's licence, your personal licence, is for every three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: For five years. So it could be tied into

there. But there is no harder place, there is no worse place, or touchy place to

hit a person than to say to them on the re-registration of their licence or

vehicle.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is the most effective.

MR. WOODFORD: Exactly. It is always collected. The person

always drives his car the next week, the next ten days, or whatever.

Those are just a few comments, because I firmly believe that

imprisonment is crazy for a lot of those fines. We go down, we pay the highest

kind of fees, we pay the highest kind of rates, it is costing us - I don't know

what a bed is costing us there a year at the Penitentiary, probably $35,000,

$36,000 per cell, or something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible) $40,000.

MR. WOODFORD: Or $40,000. It is ridiculous for a lot of

those offences. The other thing about this, what I'm talking about, is that when

the person is given the option to pay a fine of $200 or go to jail for two days,

a lot of cases today, most people would take the jail for two days. But if they

went the other way and tied it into their licence or something, well, they

wouldn't have the jail term. They would save there, plus they would be

guaranteed to collect the fine at the end of the year. Guaranteed. So it is as

one colleague of mine in the House one time referred to as a double-yammy. Not a

double-whammy, it is a double-yammy.

Mr. Chairman, just a few comments on it just looking at it

from a lay person's point of view, and in a realistic sense of how some of this

what I call petty crimes and petty fines should and can be addressed. Because it

ties in with the other section,

section 37, with regards to the extension of

fines. You can go to a judge and get an extension of fine, but people do not

like walking into a courtroom anywhere, or into a Department of Justice building

and talk to a law clerk, let alone a lawyer. They are completely intimidated

when they have to talk to a lawyer, but when they talk to a clerk, even a lot of

those people find it hard to go back, because I am after running into a lot of

that especially as it pertains to child support. A lot of people will not go

back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WOODFORD: And it is working, by the way. I am after

talking to a lot of people who have gone through the system. They find their

income has changed, their circumstances have changed, but they will not go back

to court and make application because they do not want to talk to this one, or

talk to that one, so those are just some of the comments.

The member was not here when I mentioned the fact that if he

wanted to tie a clause in on the end of that, that would, as far as I am

concerned, say the same things you are saying really in this except for

referring to the criminal code, and cover the amendment as such.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, if I may explain why the

criminal code is included in there. That is merely a reiteration of earlier

sections of the legislation that uses the same wording when talking about the

collection of fines in other manners, so that is why that's there. Earlier

sections of the act which talk about how fines may be collected include fines

which are payable to the Crown in right of the Province are also included. It is

only where the Province is in fact collecting the fines.

For example,

Section 34 which is the one that allows you to

refuse a driver's license, as the Member for Humber Valley suggested, says where

a person has not paid a fine, including a fine under the criminal code payable

to the Crown in right of the Province imposed within the time allowed for

payment. The similar provision is provided for there.

The Member for Humber Valley has raised an interesting point.

He says, well the most effective way of collecting fines is to refuse to renew a

driver's license. Well, if that is so effective why do you need to incarcerate

people who are unable to pay fines or have the power to do that without offering

them a work option? It even in fact fortifies the importance of having

Section

38.1 to prevent it from happening. Not only is it unjust, it is not cost

effective, it is unjust, and there are other methods of collecting that money,

whether it is through the civil procedure.

I say to the Member for Humber Valley if someone has a motor

vehicle and are going to get their motor vehicle license renewed or their

registration renewed, well, they are obviously in a position, to some extent

they have property. The Crown has the power to take the car away. Under other

sections of this very same act, if what they want to do is chose to threaten to

put someone in jail in order to get the money, I do not think that should be

imposed without the opportunity to work the fine off.

I want to say as well, because I was talking about a

particular example. It is interesting that the member says that if you prevent

someone from getting their driver's license renewed that becomes a deterrent and

will prompt the payment of a fine. This particular individual, as an example of

how penniless he actually was, indicated that he was unable to even renew his

driver's license because he could not afford to pay the $60 or $70 that is

required to be paid now to get your driver's license renewed for a three, four,

or whatever year period. He was saving up his money in order to be able to

afford to get his driver's license renewed in the hope that he would be able to

get a job that would earn him an income.

Let us keep ourselves grounded in reality here. Not everybody

has an income, not everybody has property, and not everybody has the ability to

pay these fines, and no one who is in that position should be incarcerated, and

section 38.(1) would prevent that from happening.

All of the remedies, all of the provisions of

section 30,

Part III of the Act,

section 32, which provide for late payment penalty,

section

33, which makes it a judgement by just filing in the Trial Division,

section 34

- and I think

section 34 -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I think the Government House Leader said that

he is not going to accept it, and I accept the fact that his government is not

prepared to make it improper and unjust to incarcerate people for non-payment of

fines.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The minister has his own point of view, and I

have mine, and that is up to him. I think it is unjust to incarcerate people who

cannot pay fines, and I don't think the law should allow it to happen. I think

the practice should end, and I think it should be made illegal.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. HARRIS: The practice of throwing people in jail

because they cannot afford to pay a fine.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you do with them?

MR. HARRIS: All the remedies are here.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I will tell you, there is one person

who is convinced and that is the man who spent the night in jail last week

because he could not afford to pay a fine, and then was forced to stay at home

until Sunday afternoon at 2:00 by order of a temporary absence from court. So,

if he and I are the voices crying in the wilderness for justice for him, then

let that be so, but I say to hon. members that there are sufficient provisions

in here to provide for the collection of fines without incarcerating people who

cannot afford to pay fines, and I would ask hon. members to support the

amendment to the Act by adding

section 38, which would prevent incarceration for

non-payment of a fine without the option of working off your fine under a fine

options program provided for in

section 38.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few comments.

This particular bill has been considered by the Social

Services Committee on two separate occasions and we did not, at that time, have

presented to us this particular amendment. While in theory I understand where my

colleague from St. John's East is coming from, I have some difficulty in

accepting the amendment because of its impractical nature.

Mr. Chairman, we all feel for those people who have to go to

prison for the non-payment of fines; however, there is a practical implication

in that in certain parts of this Province it would be totally impractical to

have a direction to a judge to have to provide for a credit for work program.

So, I cannot support the amendment; however, if the Minister

of Justice would undertake some kind of an analysis whereby there would be some

practicality to the provision then certainly probably in the future it might be

able to be considered. At the moment I don't see where adopting this particular

amendment would be effective or would serve the administration of justice in

various parts of this particular Province. Therefore, I would be voti