May 16,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before going on with the routine business of the day, on

behalf of hon. Members, I would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery, today,

the Ambassador of Japan to Canada, His Excellency Michio Mizoguchi and Mrs.

Mizoguchi, and the Consul from the Consulate General in Montreal, Mr. Yasuhiro

Hori. They are accompanied by Mr. Aiden Maloney, the Honourary Consul General of

Japan in Newfoundland.

I would like to welcome to the gallery, sixteen adults for

basic education from the Avalon Community College here in St. John's, with their

Instructor, Laurie Tulk.

I welcome. also, eight Pathfinders from Carbonear, with their

parents, Mrs. Edna Roberts and Mrs. Cindy Gosse.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Premier. Just about two

years ago, in July of 1989, the Government launched its campaign to amalgamate

over 100 municipalities. After much bungling, several retractions and mass

confusion, only a couple of groupings of municipalities have come together

co-operatively. Now, the Government is moving arbitrarily in the House of

Assembly to deal with the seventeen municipalities in the Northeast Avalon. In

the meantime, Mr. Speaker, over eighty municipalities outside the St. John's

area are still in limbo. My question is: When and how will the Government

resolve the question of amalgamation for the eighty or more municipalities

outside the St. John's area? Will the Premier finally call off Eric the

Amalgamator, withdraw the threat and allow communities to breathe easy and

citizens to live as they choose to live?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that there

were five or six groups of municipalities that came together - not a couple, as

the hon. Member suggests - voluntarily, and amalgamation has taken place. I am

told by the Minister that a significant number of others are considering

voluntarily amalgamating. It seems to me there may well be a few other groups of

municipalities that the Government may deem it expedient to bring proposals

before the House to deal with. We do not intend to call off any amalgamation

policy, or Eric the Amalgamator, as the hon. Member suggests. The hon. Minister

will continue his work to provide for better municipal government in this

Province and to try to correct some of the errors that have accumulated over the

past twenty or thirty years.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Premier may or

may not be aware, his Minister, Eric the Amalgamator, now known as Eric the

Procrastinator, was on CBC radio, yesterday, saying that his proposals to

combine municipalities in the area of Corner Brook, Stephenville and Deer Lake

are `natural and simple' and his Government would be proceeding to deal with

them in the next few months.

Now, is the Premier, who represents Mount Moriah, one of the

municipalities affected, and who claims Corner Brook as his home, aware of the

intense opposition to the proposals for combining municipalities in these areas

of Western Newfoundland? And, accordingly, is he now prepared to live up to the

word he gave the House of Assembly in the fall of 1989, and I quote: `The

Government has also stated very clearly its position that once the assessment is

done, if towns do not want to amalgamate, if they are opposed to it, the

Government will not force amalgamation on towns that do not want to amalgamate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say it for the third time, `The

Government will not force amalgamation on towns that do not want to amalgamate.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. Member is being selective.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Let me begin again, Mr. Speaker. The hon.

Member is very selective in her position. Let us just take the Corner Brook

area: We are dealing with the Town of Mount Moriah, which I have the great

honour to represent in this House, we are dealing with the Town of Massey Drive,

which the hon. Member has the honour to represent, but there is a third major

municipality in that mix, and that is the City of Corner Brook.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the City of Corner Brook wants the

amalgamation, but the others do not.

MS. VERGE: No, no, no, that is not right!

PREMIER WELLS: No, no, no? Oh, yes, yes, yes!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: The City of Corner Brook is -

MS. VERGE: You do not know what you are talking about.

PREMIER WELLS: The City of Corner Brook, the City Council

in Corner Brook, and the people of Corner Brook are horrified by the terrible

treatment the former Government gave them in creating a situation by feeding

everything in to Massey Drive and causing an exodus of taxpaying citizens from

Corner Brook into Massey Drive, where everything was paid for them by the former

Government.

MS VERGE: That is why (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the City of Corner Brook

is most anxious to have this unfair and unbalanced treatment corrected, and we

are committed to ensuring that fairness and balance at long last will reign in

the City of Corner Brook as well as Mount Moriah and Massey Drive.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest to the Premier that he pay a visit to his district

and talk to his constituents and some of his former neighbours. He will find out

that virtually nobody in the area wants this amalgamation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the case of the northeast Avalon the

Government is proposing to transfer from the Provincial Government to the City

of St. John's costly responsibility for the Aquarena and the Canada Games Park,

without increasing funding to St. John's, to offset the financial burden

associated with running these facilities. Does the Premier have any thought of

similarly foisting on other municipalities, such as Gander, Corner Brook,

Stephenville, and Happy Valley, responsibility for running other presently

provincially controlled swimming pools or recreation facilities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Aquarena and the Canada

Games Park are recreational facilities that are used by the people in this area.

The people of St. Anthony get no benefit from it whatsoever, none at all. The

people of Deer Lake get either no benefit, or virtually no benefit from it. Now,

Mr. Speaker, we think it is totally and completely unfair to use the taxes

collected by the retail sales tax in Fogo, in Burin, or in Bay d'Espoir, or

wherever, to operate recreation facilities for the St. John's area and deprive

those areas of recreation facilities. We think that is unfair and unbalanced, so

we intend to take steps to ensure that those who get the benefit of these kinds

of services really take the fundamental responsibility for it. Now, that does

not mean the St. John's city area only, it means the municipalities in the area

that would be serviced by the Aquarena and other like facilities, and the other

facilities that the St. John's City Council will continue to provide for the

municipalities in the region. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, they would expect to charge

the other municipalities a reasonable portion, but it would be unfair to charge

the people of St. Anthony or Port au Choix for doing that by taxing them to do

it, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs I will put my questions to the

Premier as well. When I asked the Premier yesterday about specific assessments

and specific feasibility studies of the amalgamation proposals that the Minister

tabled in this House on Tuesday, the Premier said the following. And lest the

Premier, as he normally does, tries to say we are misquoting him, I will quote

word for word what the Premier said.

He said: "Mr. Speaker, the Government will table the reports

of whatever commissions were done but I do not know that there were any specific

assessments done by any specific officials with respect to any specific

proposal." That was the Premier's quote from page 1 of yesterday's Hansard, tape

Now, I want to ask the Premier: in view of the answer that he

gave me yesterday, how are Members of this House to decide on the feasibility of

the amalgamation proposals that the Minister put forth in this House on Tuesday?

How are Members of this House to decide whether or not those particular

municipal groupings are viable municipal units?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as hon. Members know there

were certain commissions done. Now I do not know that there was a specific

commission done, for example, with respect to Paradise, St. Thomas, Topsail Pond

and Three Island Pond - that particular combination - I suspect there was not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I do not - well, maybe there was. I do not

believe there was for that particular combination but there was an assessment

for, I believe, St. Thomas and Paradise, but it did not include all of that. So

what I conveyed to the House was I do not know that there were particular

commissions for the specific combinations that were put forward. But in any

event, we are quite prepared to table whatever information has been made

available in this commission. And we will make that information available.

Now, the second thing: with that information, and with the

ordinary information that is available to any Member of the House, and with

ordinary diligence and work and effort on the part of the Opposition, we would

expect them to bring their good judgement to bear on whether or not these were

sound proposals or in their judgement unsound proposals, and exercise their vote

accordingly. We do not operate on the assumption that they do not know anything

on the opposite side of the House. We assume that they know something and they

can deal with the information that is available. We assume that they do not need

somebody to tell them specifically that this and only this can be done for these

and only these reasons. We think they can do it themselves, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, you have to go in a roundabout

way to get an answer from the Premier because what he has done today is confirm

what he would not confirm yesterday and that is, that the process was illegal.

There were no assessments done. Now, he has confirmed that today.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this: Does the Government

know if there will be any additional cost to municipal taxpayers as a result of

the proposals tabled in this House yesterday? Were there any assessments or

feasibility studies carried out on that? Can the Premier tell the House whether

or not those new municipal units, that are proposed in this resolution, will be

able to generate the residential and industrial tax bases to be able to service

the new areas that some of those proposed new municipal units are taking in? Are

there studies to show that can be done viably?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I believe there are no additional costs

solely by reason of the amalgamation. I believe there will be less cost arising

solely by reason of amalgamation. If, Mr. Speaker, in addition, they are going

to provide additional public services in communities that are amalgamated, then

I would not be at all surprised to find that there would be additional cost.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that if the

Leader of the Opposition wanted the Member for Mount Pearl to ask a question in

answer to his question, he would have directed the request to the Member. But

bearing in mind that he directed the request to me, I would like the opportunity

to answer without that volume of noise intervening.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you are looking at only the fact of the

amalgamation, the fact of it itself will not result in any increased cost and

should indeed result in decreased cost by reason of better opportunity to save

duplicated cost. If you are looking at increased public services in any sector

or any group of municipalities then I would not be at all surprised to find some

level of increased cost by reason of providing increased services.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: We still do not have an answer from the

Premier as to whether or not the information is going to made available to this

House and I understand the debate on that resolution is due to begin here

tomorrow.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this: Have there

been any assessments done or any feasibility studies carried out on the effect

on municipal taxpayers of shifting the financial burden for cultural and

recreational centers from the Province to municipal taxpayers? For example, in

the case of St. John's, there was a $1 million subsidy paid by the Province last

year to the Aquarena. Now, have there been any assessments or studies carried

out on the effect of shifting that burden from the general taxpayer of the

Province to the rate payer in the City of St. John's?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Any supplementary cost, or deficiency, in

the cost of operating the Aquarena will not alone be shifted to the people of

the City of St. John's. It will be shifted to the people of the communities that

use it, whichever ones use it. What we have done, Mr. Speaker, and we think we

have done wisely and fairly is shifted the burden from the people who get no

benefit whatsoever from it, the people of St. Anthony, the people of Burin, the

people of Grand Falls, and the people of Port aux Basques. We have shifted the

burden from them, because they get no benefit, to the people who get the

benefit, and hon. Members opposite do not like this wise Government because it

shows them up as being unwise and unfair in their manner of Government.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the wise Premier will

tell the swim teams from St. Anthony, Corner Brook, Baie Verte, Buchans, and all

over this Province that come in to use and to train at that facility that they

are not important, Mr. Speaker. That is what he is trying to tell them.

MR. SIMMS: He did not know that.

MR. RIDEOUT: Minister know it all, God Almighty, did not

know that. Let me ask the Premier if there were studies carried out to determine

the effect on the municipal tax payer of transferring the provincial

recreational and cultural facilities to the municipalities? Were there, or were

there not, studies carried out, and if there were not, why were they not carried

out? Does the Premier not want the people of the Province to know, and the

municipal taxpayers to know?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it may come as an utter shock

to the Leader of the Opposition, and I have no doubt from his comments that it

would come as an utter shock, to discover that there are other pools in the

Province at which swimmers train. It comes no doubt as an utter shock that they

don't only train at the Aquarena. They have lost complete control.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, whether or not there was any

specific study done on that particular issue is more than I can say at the

moment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: I will start again, Mr. Speaker.

Whether or not there was any study done with respect to the

financial effect of the transfer of the Aquarena to the administration of the

council of the City of St. John's is more than I can say at the moment. I

genuinely do not know but I will endeavour to find out, and either I, or the

Minister responsible will report to the House in the morning.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Social Services. The Minister has recently introduced a new form, form 14799,

which applicants for social assistance and their spouses are required to sign.

The form authorizes the release of personal information before they receive the

assistance. Now, how can the Minister justify a form to release any and all

information about social assistance applicants, their spouses and their children

- now or in the future I might add - and in particular, the release of all

medical records of social assistance applicants, their spouses and their

children? Is that not an unwarranted intrusion in the private lives of these

people? And how can the Minister justify a form asking this all encompassing

type of information?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My answer to the

question of whether I consider this the wrong procedure - absolutely not. When

anybody comes to the Department of Social Services to apply for assistance under

the Social Assistance Act we must be able to obtain all information - financial

information - about the individual who is applying for social assistance. In the

case that somebody comes and applies for medical assistance or assistance for

special medical reasons, we must have that information at our disposal. Any time

that any individual, regardless of what age, applies to the Department of Social

Services, whatever information is kept on file is purely and clearly

confidential information, and is for the purpose of the information required in

doing a financial assessment. It is the proper procedure and it has been

recently implemented by the Department of Social Services. It should have been

done years ago, but it was never done. But now it is the new procedure and it is

the correct procedure.

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

Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would not sign a form like

this, neither would the Minister. Neither would anyone in my sight. So why

should poor people have to sign it? Is this not a total waiver of any rights

that might exist between a client and her lawyer, which this form gives the

right to do, a patient, a doctor, a husband, a wife. The spouses' relationships,

their marital thing. Is this not a total and absolute surrender of a person's

rights when he signs this particular form?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Let me tell the hon. Member for Port au Port

very clearly, if he would not sign the form then he would not get any assistance

from the Department of Social Services. That is very clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, when individuals come to the

Department of Social Services they come to apply in most instances for financial

reasons. Anybody who comes to the Department of Social Services and applies for

assistance and we gave it to them we could discover afterwards that that

individual could possibly have a bank account of $20,000. We have to get the

information to know if those people qualify, otherwise we are jeopardizing the

Canada Assistance Plan and the rules and regulations of the Department of Social

Services.

Secondly, as far as medical information goes, if an

individual, for argument's sake, take in the case of my own, for diabetes, if I

go to the Department of Social Services and I apply for insulin or for needles,

and I say I want $50 to buy insulin needles and I do not provide the medical

information, then I could very well get it under false pretences. So it is only

to verify the medical problem that an individual has. And it is kept very

confidential.

The fact is that the thing that is being done in the

Department of Social Services now is the correct procedure, unlike the manner in

which it was done for seventeen years, in an ad hoc manner when nobody knew

which direction they were following.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am the first to realize that

Department of Social Services recipients have to sometimes give some specific

information, but, would the Minister not agree that this is a blanket invitation

to the person who accepts it, for every single type of information? And would

the Minister not agree that every person has a right to privacy whether they are

poor or not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, to the first part of the

question. Secondly, it has nothing to do - in fact, it is to protect the people

who cannot provide money for themselves. The one clear message we want to send

out is that the people who need the services of the Department of Social

Services will get them, not the people who do not need them.

Unfortunately, in many instances, you get people applying to

the Department of Social Services and abusing the system. This is a clear

procedure to make sure that the people who need the care of the Department of

Social Services will receive it. In going to any institution to apply for

services, you must provide information.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) my wife will (inaudible) for me.

MR. EFFORD: This is only a form to give the social worker

the right to that information. If individuals disagree with that, they have the

right not to sign the form, but we are asking that we be able to check out that

information.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West was Minister of Social Services. He should be ashamed to even

talk about it, because his history as Minister of Social Services is clearly

recorded in this Province.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

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

I ask the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West to

please restrain himself.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. The Province has been asked to cost-share a regional waste management

study. The study would cost approximately $100,000, of which the Province has

been asked to contribute $60,000. The City has agreed to contribute $27,000 and

Mount Pearl has agreed to contribute $13,000. I understand the Government,

initially, turned down the request.

Will the Government reconsider its rejection of this

reasonable request and agree to assist in the carrying out of this important

study?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said

in the House, I believe it was last week, when we discussed the problem of waste

disposal on the Northeast Avalon, and I said I would revisit that particular

study. No decision is made, as yet; we understand the problem quite clearly. The

Minister of Environment and Lands and myself have had dialogue with the councils

involved and have been looking at the problem, and I will be reporting shortly,

as to whether or not we can, in fact, revisit that question of studies.

MR. PARSONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern.

The City has also asked the Province to cost-share 50 per

cent of the $20,000 cost of the southwest area servicing study. This study would

prepare a plan for providing water and sewer services to the southwestern

portion of the Northeast Avalon Peninsula. What is the Government's response to

this request?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I asked my staff to identify

the five studies that were originally requested and prioritize them once again

for me, because sometimes priorities change over time, and particularly, the

study, as far as the dump site is concerned, and we would have a look at the

whole picture, including the study that he mentions. Whether or not we can

prioritize one or two or any of those studies, given the fiscal restraint

problems we have, is a question I will have to answer shortly.

MR. PARSONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, and

right to the point, I ask the Minister: Does he agree that these studies are

regional in nature and deserve the Province's support?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question because

part of the consideration is whether or not the Province should be sharing in

these studies. We are also addressing that. If, in fact, Government has a

provincial interest on a global scale, if you like, in the Northeast Avalon, and

should be contributing provincially, we will. But the cost-sharing arrangement

is one of the questions that I have asked my staff to look at, as to whether or

not we should be part of it at all? If it is strictly a municipal matter and not

provincial in nature, probably it should be cost-shared strictly by the

municipalities. That is one of the questions I have asked and I will address

that when we make a decision.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

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

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

Premier.

I ask the Premier, Has the Government received a proposal

from Fortis Corporation, the parent company of Newfoundland Power, a company

with which the Premier, of course, would be very familiar from the old days, to

purchase any of the Holiday Inns in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can only say with absolute certainty

that I have not, Mr. Speaker. Whether or not some other Minister in the

Government has received a proposal, I do not know. If they have, they have not

advised me of it.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

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

MR. SIMMS: This is the Minister of Finance, then, who

probably should know. Can the Minister of Finance confirm that Fortis

Corporation presented a proposal to the Government several months ago, offering

to purchase the Holiday Inn, in St. John's?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, when the Holiday Inns are

leased to a corporation, or operation, it has the option to purchase at the end

of that lease, and that question is being looked at at the present time. I do

not particularly want to get into any details about who is, and who is not

presently negotiating with the Government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister and the

Premier cannot answer the question, perhaps, I can advise them and ask if they

would check it out. I have been informed by the Vice-President of Fortis

Corporation that indeed, they did make a proposal to the Government several

months back, for the purchase of Holiday Inn here in St. John's.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance - I guess, he seems to

be the Minister responsible for this - Is the Government considering the

proposal put forth by Fortis, as I said, several months ago, for the sale of any

of the Holiday Inns?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we have not the right, at this

point, to consider that. I told the hon. Member that another corporation has the

right to exercise an option, and any private correspondence directed from one

company to the Government about possible events that might occur in the future,

is private information, and I will not divulge it.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I hear all kinds of suggestions

being put forth by people for a supplementary question but the one I am trying

to get at from the Minister's perspective is: If they are considering a

proposal, for example, from Fortis Corporation, which I understand Fortis

Corporation has submitted to the Government - the Minister is not forthcoming in

telling us if they are considering it - are they considering inviting offers

from anybody else? Are they considering going public, if they are going to do it

in an open fashion rather than just with, perhaps, friends of the Government.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member need not fear;

should this open up to the public, we will do what is

appropriate.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance:

Has the lease to which he refers, run out? If not, when will it run out? Does he

know that?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I am not absolutely certain

when the lease runs out, or if it has run out, but it is in that period. It has

either just run out or will shortly run out. That is something that we will be

dealing with very shortly.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

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

It is a pleasure, at this time, for me to rise and table a

report of the Government Services Legislation Review Committee respecting the

draft bill, "An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting Pensions For Members

Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, The St. John's Fire Department, And The

Staff Of Her Majesty's Penitentiary." At this time, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank

the Committee and also thank the resource people from the Department of Finance,

Mr. Bennett, some of his assistants, and, of course, the Deputy Clerk, Ms

Murphy, who acted as Secretary for the Committee.

Thank you.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

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

exceptions to the Public Tendering Act for April 8, 19 -

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

MR. PENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Government

Services Estimates Committee have considered the matters to them referred and

have passed, without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure of the Departments

of Finance, Works, Services and Transportation, Employment and Labour Relations,

and Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Social Services Estimates Committee have considered the

matters to them referred and have passed, without amendment, the Estimates of

Expenditure of the Departments of Social Services, Education, Health,

Environment and Lands, and Justice.

Notices of Motion

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Crop Insurance

Act, 1973," a major topic. Thank you.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying yesterday, I

wanted to table the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair yesterday said that it would undertake to look into

what precedent and practice were in the House. I have done that in the time I

have had, and unfortunately, I found that it was worse than I thought. As I

indicated yesterday, there is no indication of any ruling ever having been made;

that is not to say there was not one made. But, inasmuch as our system allows

one to go through and find out whether or not there was a ruling, we can find no

such ruling. Practice and tradition allow all kinds of things, and if hon.

Members wish, I come well-armed with various statements, under this particular

heading, made by hon. Members present, and I have them selected. When one is

trying to establish precedent, naturally, one can only take them from certain

sections, and I have taken them from 1975 to 1984. I have not done 1985 yet, but

I can tell hon. Members, it ranges in Answers to Questions for which Notice has

been Given, we have all kinds of precedence for Ministers commenting. I do not

think I can refer hon. Members to all of these, and find where all kinds of

things went. My ruling is substantially the same as the one I made yesterday,

that this particular item, Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given,

is an extension of Question Period, all the rules apply, and Ministers, in

giving their reply, should try to be as brief as possible.

The hon. the Minister of Development.

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is a first, trying to muzzle Government.

The questions that were asked dealt with the travel of the

Minister of Development, and those answers were tabled yesterday. Then I

proceeded to start to talk about the specific questions that were put to me with

respect to the President and the Vice-Presidents. The specific questions dealt

with travel, hotels, meals, entertainment. I will not go through the list of

Presidents and Vice-Presidents, Mr. Speaker, unless hon. Members wish me to do

so, or I can just give the totals, but I can tell you

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us.

MR. FUREY: Well, the president of the corporation spent -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: So the total for the president and all the

vice-presidents throughout the Province was $20,213.29. Mr. Speaker, the travel

basically was through Gander, Corner Brook, Lewisporte, consultative meetings

all throughout the Province, Postville, Hopedale, Labrador City, Churchill

Falls, Wabush, Goose Bay, Buchans, Lewisporte, Bay D'Espoir on and on and on. So

I will table these, and these are a detailed breakdown of where each

vice-president went, where they stayed, how much they spent on meals, what was

spent on entertainment and who they entertained. I have to get after these

people to get them to travel more. If we are going to develop this Province they

will have to get out and around and travel even more, so I will table this, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my friend from Grand

Bank that my travel budget was $100,000 in 1989-90 and I spent $70,000. My

predecessor, in three years spent $460,000 or -

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

I ask the hon. Member please not to get into debate.

Obviously, the hon. Member a the question and I ask hon. Members please to

refrain from debate. When a question is asked, then it is appropriate for a

Member to deal with it, but I ask the hon. Member to please get onto the -

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, in a separate question my hon. -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, in a separate question my hon.

friend from Grand Falls asked: since the existence of the Recovery Commission

how much each commissioner spent on travel, hotels, meals and entertainment.

MR. SIMMS: That was not a separate question. It was all

part of the same question.

MR. FUREY: No, you are right. It was all part of the same

question, that is correct. But it asked a very specific - are you frightened of

the answer or something, is the hon. Member for Grand Falls frightened of the

answer? I mean, my God Almighty, this is unheard of to be frightened of an

answer.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. I mean we

have no problem with the Minister getting up and putting on a display for the

press gallery, which he is wont to do from time to time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: He rarely gets on Question Period or anything

else because of that kind of performance, but Your Honour just ruled that the

same rules that apply in Question Period would apply under this heading and the

Minister has been up now for about four minutes since 2:43 in answering one

question which I asked and he continues to abuse the rules. Now Your Honour

knows that the Opposition has no right to respond or to further question the

Minister. So it is strictly an abuse of this particular order and I think it is

a flagrant abuse of Your Honour's ruling of a moment ago. I mean he already

tabled the answer, everybody will see it. That is all we are asking instead of

wasting the time of the House.

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

MR. BAKER: To that point of order, Your Honour. Obviously

the Opposition House Leader did not hear Your Honour's ruling. Your Honour ruled

that the precedents of this House are that Ministers are allowed to comment upon

tabling of answers. The Members opposite have been doing this for years. So Your

Honour's ruling was that answers do not simply have to be tabled, but a comment

is allowed.

The other point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that if

Members opposite want the answers to be over with as quickly as possible, I

would suggest that they stop their harassing tactics. They obviously do not want

to hear the answers. And of the two and a half to three minutes that the hon.

Member was on his feet, Your Honour, most of that time was spent in either

waiting for Members opposite to be quiet enough to be able to give the answer or

in responding to questions thrown across the floor at the hon. Member. So, Mr.

Speaker, if they want to hear an answer, then the best way to hear the answer is

to sit down, be quiet and listen. They might learn something.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair has made the ruling that the

answers ought to be brief. As I said, this Chair has made that ruling and I have

tried to stick by it. That ruling has never been made before, if we go by

precedent. As I have said, I can read to hon. Members where they went on and on

and on and I have it here. And I have said it is going to be brief, and brief is

to be decided by the Chair and not by others. If not, we are just going to have

a state of chaos in this House, and the gravity is to be decided by the Chair.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I promise to be brief. Dr. House

in fiscal year 1989-1990, for travel, hotel, meals, entertainment, with all

guests, all modes of travel, all places travelled to, spent $4,919.96. His

hotels cost $428.74. His meals cost $432, and his entertainment $238.07 for the

fiscal year 1989-1990. In 1990-1991 Dr. House travelled considerably more,

mostly in Newfoundland, 97 per cent in Newfoundland. His total travel was

$12,210.36. His hotel bills were $1,236.84. His meals were $1,297, and his

entertainment was $259.70.

Commissioner Sherk in 1989-1990, in the Labrador region,

which is her responsibility, travelled mostly in Newfoundland and Labrador, 95

per cent. Her travel costs were $5,916.25. Her hotels were $852.37. Her meals

were $780.42, and her entertainment was $175.77. Commissioner Sherk in 1991

travelled slightly more, mostly in Labrador, $11,868.10. Her hotels were $903.64

and her meals were $975.20.

Commissioner Pointer, for 1989-1990. Total travel, $474.81.

Hotels, $158, Meals, $111. Commissioner Pointer for 1990-1991. Travel,

$6,513.12. Her hotels were $2,410.98. Her meals were $792.95. And her

entertainment $187.53.

Commissioner Humphries had considerable travel throughout the

Province for 1989-1990. His travel was $12,654.28. His hotels were $3,306, his

meals $2,011, and his entertainment $213. In 1990-1991, considerable travel

again, mostly in the Newfoundland area, some of it in the Halifax-Toronto area,

$22,271.14. Hotels, $2,693 -

MR. SIMMS: Point of order.

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: I would ask Your Honour directly how long he

is going to let this abuse continue?

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

I have made the ruling and I have told hon. Members what the

practice and procedure is and hon. Members have a procedure to rule against the

Chair. But these constant points of order - I have been looking at the Minister

to see what detail he is going into. He is skipping over three and four pages

and it looks like he has one to go and it is over. And I do not consider that -

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Point of order.

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Did Your Honour simply rule a moment ago that

answers under this head would be treated the same as answers in Question Period?

They should be brief. Did he not say that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is not going to debate with the hon. the Opposition

House Leader. And I have said that there is no point of order. The Chair decides

what brevity will be. And I have considered, in view of the answer, that the

hon. the Minister has not been excessive. And I would ask him to finish, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. FUREY: Finally, Your Honour, the totals for

Commissioner Humphries then would be - I named the travel costs for 1990-1991.

Hotels, $2,693, meals $2,742, and entertainment $493.

Your Honour, that is the President, all the Vice-Presidents,

the Chairman of the Commission, all of the commissioners. And in total I think,

in two years, all of these people spent far less than just my one predecessor,

Minister Barrett, in all of his three years as Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to lay upon

the floor of the House my expenses for the period April 1, 1990, to March 31

I think it is important with a Ministry which formerly - I

should make this point first, I believe, I think it is pertinent - was three

Ministries and is now one. Previously Municipal Affairs and Culture, Recreation

and Youth, and Housing, three separate Ministries. They say I was the author of

amalgamation but I think really the Premier should take credit for it, long

before I started the amalgamation procedure in the municipalities, when he

downsized the Government to reasonable numbers compared to the previous

Government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair does not have in front of it what the questions

are. The normal procedure is for the hon. Member to say that he is referring to

question number so-and-so. Hon. Members will have to cooperate with the Chair

and we have to remember that the Chair has said to be brief and we should not be

prolonging the thing unnecessarily, if there needs to be a comment, give it

quickly and table the document.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just quickly detail the trips that were taken over the

last year. First of all, Clarenville, Grand Falls, Upper Island Cove, Quebec,

Saskatoon, Stephenville, Grand Falls, Yukon, Brigus, Clarke's Beach, South

River, Bay Roberts, Avondale, Norman's Cove, Chapel Arm, Summerside,

Stephenville, Avondale, Cox Cove, Badger's Quay, Twillingate, Grand Falls -

Windsor, Great Humber Joint Councils Meeting in Jackson's Arm, Conception Bay,

Twillingate, New Brunswick, Placentia, Corner Brook, Summerside, Irishtown, St.

Mary's, -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair really sees no significance in the hon. Member

reading out everything. The only comment which should be made when presenting

this is something that needs further clarification. The Minister should not get

into reading the whole thing if it does nothing to enlighten the question asked.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Okay, Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that

there are about another ten or twelve trips in addition to the ones that I

listed.

Mr. Speaker in total there were thirty trips out of St.

John's, four of those to the mainland. When you consider, as I mentioned these

were three former ministries, four trips to the mainland for ministerial

meetings is not too bad, it is a little more than one per former ministry. Mr.

Speaker, I would hate to compare the thirty trips and divide that by the three

former ministries, which would be ten per ministry, compare that to the previous

government. I would hate to even attempt to compare and go back. I would not do

that, I would not want to embarrass the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this, I have to apologize to the

House because with 500 municipalities to look after, I should be visiting these

municipalities more and in the future I will certainly attempt to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl is on a point of order.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House are very

clear. In Question Period, questions are to be brief and answers are to be

similarly brief. Similarly, there is a provision Your Honour has ruled many

times, when questions are too lengthy and too detailed Your Honour has ruled

that the question, because it is lengthy and detailed, should be placed on the

Order Paper because it automatically requires a lengthy answer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that simply implies quite logically that if

a question is too long in detail to be asked in Question Period, then the answer

is too long in detail to be given in the House as well. That is why it is placed

on the Order Paper. The Minister has an opportunity to research the detail, to

provide the detail in writing to the House of Assembly and table it.

A Minister is given the courtesy of a few moments to explain

and to enlarge on his answer but not to sit here and laboriously read out and

bore the House of Assembly with a lot of detail that is in writing. It is an

affront, an insult to the House, an abuse of the privileges of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Development to that point of order.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we are just taking a precaution

in the event that those who have had the questions written for them, who do not

fully understand them, who are tabling them in the House, can have them

explained to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

MR. FUREY: Some of these people have asked extremely

complex questions, some of them very specific, and they require an explanation.

It is not enough to just put down on paper, (a), (b), (c), (d), unless you

explain it for certain Members in this Chamber. Some of them have a certain

level of understanding, others have another level of understanding, we just want

to make sure they completely and fully understand these very complex answers.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order.

Unfortunately, despite what hon. Members might say, the rules

are not clear with respect to this particular item. It has never been ruled on

before but the Chair is trying with great difficulty to try and advise

Ministers, in particular, precisely as to what they should be saying. The Chair

has said they should be brief, and should not attempt to try to abuse the rules

of the House, to get down over the items as quickly as possible and only explain

insomuch as explanation is necessary. I tell hon. Members present that there are

a lot more rules for answers on the Order Paper than just because of their

length. That is not the only reason why they are there. They are there, because

in many cases, a Minister is not expected to be able to have these figures, or

statistics, from the top of their heads. I say to hon. Members again that the

Chair is trying with great difficulty to train the House, if you will, into what

we should be doing here, and if I take it by precedent I have a lot of levity

and a lot of flexibility, but the Chair is going to try and interpret it for the

way the rules ought to be.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I will very quickly sum up.

About one more sentence should do it. I was saying when I was interrupted that

with some 500-odd municipalities to look after in Municipal Affairs alone it is

very important that I get around the Province, the Island portion and Labrador,

more than I have been doing, so I want to apologize to the House for that,

because I have not been travelling as much as I would liked to have travel. I am

determined throughout the next year to travel more throughout the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do not think the Minister needs to rationalize. Get to the

question.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to Question No.30 on the Order Paper I would like

to lay on the table of the House a list of trips taken by me as Minister of

Justice and Attorney General in the last year.

Petitions

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with pleasure I rise in my place today, and I suppose

with hope that I still think that it might be adhered to, or addressed, in

presenting a petition from 984 people living in the Town of Wedgewood Park. I

have to be truthful and say that two days ago, at least, when the Minister

brought in his amalgamation resolution I thought to myself, well, this is where

it ends. But, Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Premier yesterday I beg to

differ. I think this resolution that the Minister speaks of had some mistakes in

it and I think that because of those mistakes I believe that the people of

Wedgewood Park have a right for their situation to be addressed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the prayer of the petition:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have

announced that it will introduce legislation calling for the annexation of the

Town of Wedgewood Park by the City of St. John's, and

WHEREAS the Provincial Department of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs established a criteria that was to govern any amalgamation of

communities in the northeast Avalon region, and set up independent commissioners

to determine the feasibility of any such measures, and

WHEREAS the town of Wedgewood Park presented to the

independent Provincial Government appointed commission a sound and rational

proposal to maintain autonomy for the Town, based on the financial planning and

service criteria as set forth by Government, and based on the fact that the town

already pays its fair share of regional services and its annexation will not

provide financial savings for the City of St John's, and

WHEREAS the Commission upon clear analysis of the case

presented to the Town of Wedgewood Park has strongly recommended to Government

that the best option for the future municipal structure in the area is for

Wedgewood Park to maintain its autonomy, and

WHEREAS the residents of Wedgewood Park have overwhelmingly

stated their opposition to the annexation of their community we the undersigned

hereby petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and individual

Members of the House of Assembly to act as follows, that they move to ensure the

Town of Wedgewood Park continues as the vibrant, fiscally responsible and

separate municipality that its citizens have worked so hard to develop. That is

the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the amalgamation process, as defined by both the

Premier and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, was supposed to be

fair, unbiased and independent. It was the Minister of Municipal Affairs who

appointed the commission to seek the needs of the area and to seek the

aspirations and desires of the residents. During that period, I, like many other

residents of in the Northeast Avalon, attended many of their meetings. I

remember distinctly, being at the Radisson with the Town of Wedgewood Park and

hearing their submission. Mr. Speaker, the submission dealt with what is right

for the ordinary people whom I, like every other Member of this House,

represent.

The recommendations of that commission said that Wedgewood

Park should be treated as a model community, a model to the rest of the Island

and Labrador and, perhaps, even across Canada. I have stated over and over that

in 1977, no one wanted Wedgewood Park. People went in there on their own with

enthusiasm and desire to make a place for themselves and their children and

grandchildren. That is what they have done, and they want it to stay as such.

I appeal to the Government, today, to all the Members of

Government, in particular the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to

accede to their request. It has nothing to do in a financial way -

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

MR. PARSONS: May I have leave for a moment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, if it was a financial aid to

the City of St. John's, then perhaps we could see it. If it was done in an

overall way, I could see it. But there is no financial aid to St. John's in

amalgamating Wedgewood Park with St. John's. And, on moral grounds, I, today,

ask the Premier and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to again

look at the situation. There are 1,400 people in Wedgewood Park who ask, today -

I am asking for them - that the Premier and the Minister reconsider the

amalgamation of Wedgewood Park and leave those 1,400 people the happy people

that they are today. They are happy people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand to support the petition

presented by my colleague from St. John's East Extern. I believe what we have

seen today, from the petition presented by my colleague, and what we have seen

and heard in the past couple of days, is amalgamation gone wrong.

The concept of amalgamation is something with which I do not

think a whole lot of people would disagree, but there is a right way and a wrong

way of approaching amalgamation, and this Government has chosen to travel the

road in the wrong direction. I believe, if there is an example of how

amalgamation can be done in a very co-operative way, even though it will take

time, it has to be the amalgamation of Grand Falls - Windsor. That approach was

the right way. There was consultation over the years, for many years. I think it

probably took ten or fifteen years. These two towns came together when they were

ready to come together, and there is no doubt in my mind that they will derive

benefits from that amalgamation. But it was done the right way and for the right

reasons, because the people - the people - decided. And what we have seen from

this Government, Mr. Speaker, is no one listening to the people of this

Province, and particularly, the people who are to be amalgamated. The Government

chose not to listen to the people, and if there is one case in point, it has to

be Wedgewood Park. It is not the Member representing Wedgewood Park, it is not

the Leader of the Opposition, it is not the Premier, it was the people who were

appointed, namely the commissioners, who brought in the recommendation to this

Government. `You appointed me to bring in a recommendation on Wedgewood Park,

and here it is, Mr. Government, here it is. Do not amalgamate Wedgewood Park.'

What did the Government do? They tore it up. They tore it up, Mr. Speaker. It

cost thousands of dollars, no doubt, for this Government and the towns to have

these commissioners go out and listen to what has been said. They brought in the

recommendation, and the Government ignored the recommendation.

If Governments are going to set up some sort of smoke screen

to make out that is what Government wants, and if the right people are not

chosen, then there is something wrong with the process. In this case, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs appointed his assistant deputy ministers to travel

this Province, I would suggest, with instructions, in many cases, to bring back

the recommendations they wanted, and that is where it is wrong. What this

Government should have done, Mr. Speaker, is appointed independent people to

bring in recommendations for the groupings, not someone who works in the next

office to the Minister every day and every five or ten minutes when the Minister

presses his telephone and says, `Tell the ADM I would like to see him for a few

minutes', within a second he is there. That is not independence, Mr. Speaker. It

is the senior employee of this Government, without union protection, without any

protection, whatsoever, that they have sent around this Province to bring back

recommendations. Now, that is wrong. That is wrong. Perception -

MR. PARSONS: Wedgewood Park, (inaudible) brought it in.

MR. TOBIN: I know that. Perception is reality in this

case. In the case of Wedgewood Park, we brought in a recommendation that the

Minister did not like, but in the case of some other place, they may bring in

one he does like. And whatever the case is, Mr. Speaker, perception is reality.

And I suggest that all of the groupings have had that same problem. If there is

one complaint that I have heard constantly and consistently, it was the fact

that the Government appointed assistant deputy ministers to bring in

recommendations. What happened when they brought in recommendations? When they

brought in recommendations, if they liked them, good, and if they did not like

them, the same thing happened as happened to Wedgewood Park.

Mr. Speaker, that may sound somewhat contradictory, but the

concept - and I want to say it again - the concept of amalgamation, I have no

problem with, none whatsoever, but it has to be done with the people supporting

it; and the people lost trust and belief and any faith in the concept of

amalgamation, when this Government appointed a senior bureaucrat to be part of

the public hearings. We see him come in here to this area. We know, Mr. Speaker,

on that side of the House, right now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say to this

Government that if there was one mistake, it was the way they brought in these

people, the assistant deputy ministers, to make a ruling. I would suggest, and I

beg - in the absence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I will ask the

President of Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker - that they reconsider the approach

they have taken, and consider giving the people the opportunity to become more

involved than they have been in the past, and to let the people of Wedgewood

Park live in the community that they developed, that they nourished, that they

brought along to what it is today, that everybody wants. If they would that, and

when the people of Wedgewood Park are prepared to expand and to move in with the

City of St. John's, then amalgamation will be approved.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: We are into Order 15, Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 4.

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

Evidence Act." (Bill No. 4)

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, a point of order, if the

Minister does not mind.

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

point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: My recollection is that on the last day, the

Member for St. John's East adjourned the debate, and I was just wondering if he

knows that Orders of the Day are called. I think his un-elected Leader has gone

out to check to see if he is there. Maybe if the Minister were not so anxious,

we might, out of courtesy, just take thirty seconds in case he comes in and gets

upset because we are trampling on his rights or something.

MR. SIMMS: He might be doing a press interview, or

something.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that point of order, all hon. Members know the order in

which things are done in the House, and as we go through Answers to Questions,

and Petitions that very quickly, Orders of the Day are called. We cannot

postpone Orders of the Day because a particular Member does not happen to be in

the House. I know it probably would be better if he were here because he had

indicated in terms of votes that we would make some kinds of allowances for the

Member for St. John's East. He has had a couple of minutes now to get back in,

but he is not here, so, Mr. Speaker, I guess we have no choice but to go on with

second reading.

The hon. Member is now entering the House and I suppose we

could, out of courtesy, extend him the time he needs to finish his comments on

the Evidence Act, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I adjourned debate on second reading on the Evidence Act.

Perhaps the Speaker could indicate how much time is remaining, or the Clerk may

know how much is remaining of my time. I would like to know.

MR. SPEAKER: Eighteen minutes.

MR. HARRIS: Eighteen minutes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was interested, Mr. Speaker, in making some remarks on this

bill because I find that this legislation is being presented to this House

without, I think, really serious consideration of the implications for this

Province, and for patients and patients' rights in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which is really about the balance

of power. We have had a couple of speeches from the Government side on this

bill, one by the Minister of Health and one by the Minister of Justice. In his

speech, the Minister of Justice quite rightly recognized that he had a

particular problem with the principles involved. He said it was not a piece of

legislation that he was totally comfortable with, because it was a piece of

legislation that took away the rights to obtain information and evidence in a

court about matters which are of great importance to patients in hospitals, who,

perhaps, had reason to believe - or were not sure, as to whether or not proper

procedures were carried out, resulting in difficulties which led to court action

or court cases.

Mr. Speaker, he was right in being concerned about this

legislation, and I contrast his misgivings and concern with a statement and a

speech that was made by the Minister of Health on the issue. Now, this is a

matter of great sensitivity and a matter of principle, Mr. Speaker, but the

Minister of Health treated it as a partisan matter, what would have to be

regarded as a positive Government measure to improve the health care system in

this Province. Well, Mr. Speaker, the people who presented it to the Special

Committee were not terribly convincing.

Mr. Speaker, the principal reason given for the introduction

of this piece of legislation in this House - well, there are two reasons. One, a

number of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada have it - that was one

reason - have similar exemptions. And the second reason was that if you did not

give an exemption to doctors and other medical practitioners for this purpose,

they would not participate in a process that would improve the health care

system and the health care procedures in their respective hospitals.

Now, that argument is distasteful. What the medical

profession and the medical professionals are saying to the Government is that if

you do not give us a special exemption, a special privilege, then our members

will not participate in these processes. That is what they said to the

Committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) legal aid.

MR. HARRIS: I do not know whether it has anything to do

with lawyers and legal aid. But, let me tell the hon. Member, if the President

of Treasury Board had the misfortune of having an operation and coming away from

that operation with something wrong with him that he did not have before he went

in, and if he were trying to find out, as a result of being disabled by this

operation, whether or not there was a responsibility on the hospital or the

doctor that could take over the costs to him of suffering from the disability

that he then received, if the Member were left paralysed, left without some of

his bodily functions working, left unable to earn a living, or if a member of

his family suffered irreparable damage - for example, I mean, it is easy enough

to happen, a loss of oxygen to the brain, and he wanted to find out whether or

not it was possible that the deep pockets of the insurance companies that insure

doctors and hospitals, and the medical profession, could compensate him and his

family for the costs of this mistake, or whether he, himself would have to bear

the burden, or suffer, himself, or have his family or child suffer without any

compensation, if he wanted to find that out he would have to rely on one of

these lawyers that he might like to laugh at from time to time. And that lawyer

will tell him - as a lawyer will be required to do - that it is very difficult

to find out information with respect to a medical malpractice suit. And that

lawyer would tell the hon. Member, the President of Treasury Board, that in

order to find out, you would have to go up against a very well financed legal

help on the other side, and that very well financed legal help is financed by an

organization called the Canadian Medical Protective Association.

And they will pay substantial monies - whatever it costs - to

fight against claims and to take

part in the litigation on the other side and

represent the interests of the establishment, of the doctors, of the medical

boards, of the medical profession and the hospitals, against an individual who

is trying to seek redress.

Now, in this relationship between the big organization and

the individual trying to find out what the alternatives are, there is a balance

of power. And that balance of power - even in the ordinary course of events - is

really in the favour of the doctors, the medical establishment. Because you are

dealing with on the other side, people who do not know very much about the

medical profession, about the procedures, about how they work, about what

changes might be made in the procedures or whether the procedures that were

followed twenty years ago still sufficiently meet the standard of care that

would be applied. And an individual trying to find that out has to rely, in many

cases, on experts, other medical professionals, other medical doctors.

And, Mr. Speaker, common sense would tell you, but experience

tells even more, that it is difficult to find a medical doctor to say that

another medical doctor's actions were perhaps negligent or did not meet the

standard of care, that is difficult enough on an ordinary day-to-day experience,

that is difficult enough.

But experience also tells that it is very difficult to find

someone, and also very expensive to find a means of assessing whether or not a

claim might be present; in order to do so, you have to rely on whatever

information you can get to hand and it may be, that having received the

information, having had an opportunity to review any reports or assessments or

evaluations that may have been done, that a lawyer could feel comfortable

advising a client: well look, it seems that everything that was done here was

done in accordance with the standards of the day; in fact, there was no one who

had any criticisms of it, it was reviewed by all hands and nobody even suggested

any alternative procedures or, in fact they perhaps did suggest alternative

procedures, but these were procedures that are not followed in this hospital,

they are not followed in any hospital in Canada at the moment, they are being

introduced for a first time in some other jurisdiction so therefore, the

standard that would be applied in this particular case was met and you do not

really have a claim, you have to suffer the loss that you bear, yourself.

At least, the individual who has suffered or feels aggrieved

by what happened at a medical hospital or in a medical procedure, at least that

person has the satisfaction of knowing that they do not have a case, that they

can at least rest that they have pursued all means to see whether or not they

could be compensated by these professionals or insurance companies, which are

basically set up to provide insurance when a doctor makes a mistake, and, Mr.

Speaker, we do know that doctors make mistakes, just as lawyers or accountants

or politicians for that matter, make mistakes for which they are responsible for

in law.

A person driving a motor vehicle who is careless and makes a

mistake by going through a stop sign when he or she should not, or makes a wrong

turn, the insurance system is set up to recover for those mistakes and to share

the loss so that the person who ends up being struck by a motor vehicle, does

not have to bear the loss of employment, the loss of enjoyment of life or bear

the pain of suffering on his or her own. That loss is spread out amongst those

people who bear it by payment of insurance premiums and by insurance companies

meeting that loss when the time comes.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the same principle applies to medical

practitioners and hospitals who have taken on a very big responsibility when

they take care of the life and health of an individual in an extreme situation

such as, where a person is in a hospital for an operation or procedure. We are

talking, Mr. Speaker, about somebody: perhaps the Member for St. John's South is

undergoing an operation and he is unconscious, he is under a total anesthetic,

he cannot see what they are doing, whether they are doing it right or whether

they are doing it wrong. Even if he could see, he would not know whether they

were doing it right or wrong, so why should he not have the advantage, at least

if he is trying to find out after, if something went wrong, whether it was the

fault of the doctor or whether it was just chance or just an accident, nobody's

fault; why should he not have that right?

Well, Mr. Speaker, by passing this piece of legislation, what

the Legislature is being asked to do, is, to say to the Member for St. John's

South: no, no, you cannot have access to that information because if we allowed

you to have access to that information, our doctors would not talk about

operations, would not try to improve things, would not assess their procedures

and would not try to make them better. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not good

enough from the medical profession.

I do not think that is good enough a standard of ethical

behaviour from the medical profession, if what they are saying to this House is

that we do not have sufficient power to control our members to require them

ethically to participate in these kinds of committees and they have them spelled

out in the Bill.

And that is another issue, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that

the Minister of Justice, when he introduced the Bill was even sufficiently clear

as to what it is he is excluding from evidence in court, and not just in court,

it is for discoveries for what they call interrogatories or any other legal

proceeding that is involved, access to all of this information is excluded for

any purpose related to three types of committees which they refer.

One is called the Provincial perinatal committee, the other

is a quality assurance committee and the other is a peer review committee. None

of these committees is defined in the legislation; they define witness, they

define legal proceeding but they do not define these committees and it is not

very clear, Mr. Speaker, what these committees are, or whether or not the

hospitals' lawyers or the unseen people in this Canadian Medical Professional

Association, who do not even tell the Newfoundland Medical Association how many

claims they are dealing with.

The Newfoundland Medical Association, Mr. Speaker, has had

that information withheld from it by this Association. They do not tell their

members how many claims they are processing - the Newfoundland Medical

Association. I do not think the Department of Health knows how many claims there

are against doctors for medical malpractice in this Province. They do not keep

records, they have no way of knowing. The Canadian Medical Protective

Association which pays the legal fees of lawyers to defend the hospitals, they

do not tell the Newfoundland Medical Association what is going on.

So it is not the doctors who are going to claim this defence,

this exclusion. It is the lawyers for the insurance company, the Canadian

Medical Protective Association. They are the ones who are going to be claiming

it in practice. And they may not know any more what a quality assurance

committee is than the Minister of Justice. But what they will be doing certainly

is trying to characterize any discussion - about what happened when the Member

for St. John's South's theoretical operation went wrong - that might have gone

on about that - what happened in this operation? - that is all going to be

characterized as a peer review committee. That is all going to be characterized

as a quality assurance committee.

If we do not have - not all of it obviously - but they are

going to try to characterize what went on - or what discussions, reports or

recommendations that might have been rising out of a mistake that may have been

made - those things as part of the peer review process or part of the quality

assurance process, in an effort to deny to an individual who might want to

pursue a claim - or even find out whether he or she has one - they are going to

be used to deny access to that information.

That is fundamentally wrong. It is fundamentally wrong to do

that because it shifts the balance of power toward - those who are powerful are

given a privilege of secrecy over what may be, and in many cases would be, vital

information to a patient who has suffered as a result of something going wrong

in an operation or medical procedure. And that is why the Newfoundland Human

Rights Association came to the Legislative Committee and said to the Legislative

Committee that they thought that it was wrong. That it was a violation of

patients' rights and that they did not support this legislation.

Now I want the Minister of Justice to tell the House what

review his Department did of the other jurisdictions which have similar type

legislation. What I suspect is that the other jurisdictions that have this

legislation were those jurisdictions - particularly the American jurisdictions,

where the cost of doctors' and medical insurance are very high, because they are

a very litigious lot in the United States. You can sue anybody for anything in

the United States, and people like to do it. Lawyers take on the cases and go

for big settlements and it has made the practice of medicine in the United

States - which is a very privatized affair - very expensive and very difficult.

But as a result of these pressures and the lobbying done by

the American Medical Association and other medical groups and hospital groups in

the United States, they managed to convince a number of legislatures in the US -

I do not know, twenty, thirty, thirty-five or forty of them, I am not sure

exactly how many, a number of states in any event - through very expensive

lobbying efforts, which is the procedure that happens in the States, to pass

similar type legislation. A number of jurisdictions in Canada - not the Province

of Ontario - and that has nothing to do with the current Government of Ontario.

The Government of Ontario has been lobbied about this for years, as has the

Newfoundland Government. The former government had the good sense to turn it

down before, to their credit, to turn down the special privilege for the medical

profession. This Government seems to have bowed to the lobbying effort and are

going to put it in.

And I think it is a retrogressive step. It is a hiding away

from the truth. If the truth is that the medical professionals will not talk

about quality assurance, will not engage themselves in peer review, will not do

things to improve the medical procedures and practices in this Province without

this legislation, then they should face up to the truth and do something about

it by changing around their ethical procedures and having some pressure put on

them from those quarters instead of making special privileges for them in this

House, which act to the detriment of patients and patients' families in the

event that something goes wrong.

Those are my comments on the Bill. I think it is bad

legislation, retrogressive, and I think that the Minister of Justice's

misgivings about it ought to give rise to a reconsideration by the Government

and a further look at this. And I think that upon reflection the Government

would have to see that this is a bad move and a retrogressive step. And I ask

them to withdraw this legislation and give it further consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to have a few

remarks on Bill 4 as well, the Act to Amend the Evidence Act. Now, I listened to

the Minister introducing the legislation a few days ago and actually I do not

think - the Minister gave no justification whatsoever for the Government

bringing in this Bill. The Minister of Health, while I disagree with him but at

least to his credit, tried in some way to justify the need for this piece of

legislation. But the Minister bringing it forth, the Minister of Justice in his

introduction, gave none. I do not know if he will at all when he rises to close

the debate.

But I for one - and that is why I am standing - want it

recorded in this House - even for the sake of some time in the future if

anything happens as I suspect it will as a result of this legislation - that I

am against this piece of legislation. I was a Member of a Cabinet that was

lobbied years ago by some people in the medical profession - I do not think it

is all of them, by the way - to bring in this piece of legislation, and we as a

government refused. And I think we did the right thing.

Why do doctors, people in the medical profession, need this

kind of protection? The Minister of Health the other day tried to argue that it

was for the protection of the client, the patient. Well, that is the most

ludicrous argument I ever heard. But what is there? I mean, there are not many

cases of privilege and exemption from prosecution or giving evidence that we

find in our society today. You find the solicitor-client relationship, you find

a confessor-type-clergy relationship in certain areas. And that is about all I

can think of.

And why therefore would the medical profession and the

Government, consider bringing in this piece of legislation? What is wrong with

people who have discussed medical matters in a peer review committee having to

testify on those matters in a court proceeding if a court proceeding happened to

come out of some particular medical happening? What is wrong with it? Absolutely

nothing. Why should those people be exempt from the law? I mean, there will have

to be a very powerful argument made to convince me that there is a special

reason that the medical profession should have this right that practically

nobody else in our society has.

I remember the late Dr. Twomey arguing passionately against

this proposed exemption. And God only knows, as a medical practitioner for forty

odd years or something in this Province, well known and respected, I suppose one

could even say 'loved' by thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as a

medical practitioner. I remember him - as a rookie Cabinet Minister I remember

Dr. Twomey passionately arguing against his colleagues who were speaking on

behalf of the NMA, arguing against giving this exemption to people in the

medical profession.

Now we have this Government bringing it in. Why is it that

this Government is catering to this request? The Minister has an obligation -

the Minister who is bringing it in. Not the Minister of Health who got up and

ranted and raved like some kind of a madman the other day. But the Minister who

is bringing it in has a responsibility to tell this House in clear, certain

terms why it is that this legislation is necessary. It certainly cannot be

necessary from a patient point of view, from a client point of view. It is only

going to make it more difficult. It will make it more difficult if there

happened to be the need or some person perceives the need for a malpractice

suit. I would think this would make it more difficult. You are not going to be

able to summons the people on the peer review committees or the quality

assurance committees. Not going to be able to do that any more. Is this a way to

use the authority of this Legislature to make it more difficult for ordinary

human beings to sue in a malpractice suit? Is that the intent of the

legislation?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, they cannot go testify about what was

said in the committee meetings.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Yes it is, that is the whole point

(Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, this is - well, I mean, if that is the

case perhaps the Explanatory Notes should be changed. The amendment "would

exclude from legal proceedings information on file with the Provincial Perinatal

Committee, a quality assurance committee or a peer review committee." Now, does

the Government House Leader know - the man who is responsible for the

legislative agenda for the Government - what the Bill says?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, I know (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, I just read it out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Blessed Lord. I mean, how much clearer can

you be? The "amendment to The Evidence Act would exclude from legal proceedings

information on file with the Provincial Perinatal Committee, a quality assurance

committee or a peer review committee."

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: You cannot -

MS. VERGE: But it gives them immunity from repeating what

they said in the committee meetings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: But why? Why not (Inaudible) -

MR. RIDEOUT: Let me go on, I say to the President of

Treasury Board, and read the rest of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker: "The Bill would also excuse

physicians or other persons acting on behalf of the preceding committees from

having to testify in court in connection with information obtained by a

committee in the normal course of the committee's duties." Now, why? Why is that

necessary?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, just because you say it is. Why is it

necessary to give this exemption to this group of people in the medical

profession that other people in other professions - I do not know if they are

seeking, but certainly we have not given it to them. Why? There has to be some

reason for this. That the NMA would put any great time into lobbying to have it

- and as they have spent years at it, as far as I know. I mean, they lobbied us

when we were a government every time they met with us. And they have been

lobbying in other jurisdictions that have not done it, for example in Ontario.

MS. VERGE: Clyde promised one of the NMA executives that

he would do this.

MR. RIDEOUT: Ah, there is the answer, is it? The answer

is that the Premier promised one of the NMA executive members that the

Government would do it. Without any consideration I suppose.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Dr. Young (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I do not know. Did they fall victim to the

lobby? I mean, sometimes there is nothing wrong with being the last person out,

I say to the Member for Carbonear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: No, we are not. But sometimes it is not

wrong to be in that position.

MS. VERGE: Ontario does not have it.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, Ontario does not have it, it has already

been mentioned, and they are -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ontario will have it within a matter of -

in a couple of months.

MR. RIDEOUT: How can you say that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) order paper (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, is that a fact? That is a fact, is it?

You are sure of that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes I am.

MR. RIDEOUT: I see. But I do not care if the whole world

has it. I think the question is still operative, why is it necessary? Can

somebody make a logical, sane argument why it is necessary? The Minister of

Justice made no argument when he brought the Bill in as to why it was necessary.

He mumbled out a few introductory remarks and sat down. The Minister of Health

got up in a tirade and turned on everybody who has ever had anything to do with

government in this Province in the last forty odd years. He gave no explanation

why it was necessary.

So it is now incumbent on the Minister of Justice who brought

in the Bill to tell us why it is necessary. Personally, I am worried about it,

personally as an individual Member of this House. I was not convinced when I was

lobbied, when I was in a position to influence the Government legislative

agenda. I was not convinced then, and I am not convinced now. I happen to

believe, unless somebody can convince me otherwise, that it is bad legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister will.

MR. RIDEOUT: The Minister will? Well, he will have his

chance now, because I just want to put on the record how I feel about it

personally, because I think that some day, somewhere, this bill is going to come

back to haunt the people who will vote for it today.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to have a few comments on Bill 4. Mr.

Speaker, I am dubious and have some reservations as it pertains to this Bill.

Why I have those reservations, Mr. Speaker - and I want to speak directly now to

the Minister of Justice. I listened to the opening remarks of the Minister of

Justice the other day, and they stuck with me. I want to say to the Minister of

Justice, that if he believes in his heart that this legislation could be harmful

to any one individual in this Province, then I think the obligation is on the

Minister of Justice to defer this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has brought in some

legislation, and I find no difficulty with most of what he has done. He is a

young man who seems to have his head screwed on right.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is brilliant.

MR. PARSONS: Perhaps he is brilliant, and I will accord

him that, and respect him - but I hope that in his brillance he will accede to

my request, that if he thinks in his heart there is any chance of anyone being

hurt by this legislation, then he should withdraw it immediately. I really

believe that, and I am saying it with all sincerity, because I have to quote the

Minister, "And it took quite some time before I was convinced that it was the

right thing to do." I find it very hard to get through to me that a Minister,

with some doubts, could bring in a piece of legislation, especially when it

deals with the health of our people.

I am a bit leery, too, as to why the medical profession, if

their peers -

AN HON. MEMBER: Not all of them are looking for it.

MR. PARSONS: Not all of them are looking for it. I have a

couple of friends who are doctors, who do not seem to have any great need for

this legislation. Again, I am not sure if the Premier promised it or not, but I

hope, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the reason why it is being brought in.

The Minister of Health got up, and I was surprised at the

Minister of Health. I really was. You know, when you look at the situations that

we have occurring, in some instances, through our medical profession - not very

often, but there have been instances in the Province, that we all know of and

can relate to - and then to have the Minister of Health speak downright on

partisan politics. Mr. Speaker, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the

Minister of Health got up in that tirade and went on with what he went on with.

All of us, here in this Legislature, have respect for individuals who go to

hospitals.

The excuse is being offered here, Mr. Speaker, that if this

is not passed, then some doctors would not press forward. From what I gather,

they would not take chances. Mr. Speaker, if I go to the hospital and there is a

chance to be taken, then I want that doctor to come to me and tell me that there

is a chance to be taken, and I want to be the person to say, yes or no.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: One second, now.

This is what I get from it, that if we do not pass this Bill,

those doctors might be reluctant to take some chances or they might be reluctant

to do the things that they would find, within this legislation, normal to do. I

take exception to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong bill.

MR. PARSONS: No, it is not the wrong bill. I say to the

Minister of Health, if you had not gotten up in that tirade - and I hope the

Minister of Justice, who I have a lot of respect for, I hope that the Minister

of Justice addresses my concerns. My concerns are sincere, and I ask the

Minister of Justice before he brings this legislation to pass that he explain to

me that I have my thoughts or my concerns unfounded. Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

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

If he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I spoke the other

day, I indicated my concerns and also my support for the Bill, and some things

that have been said here today perhaps do not reflect accurately what I said at

that time. As a lawyer, I indicated to have an aversion to offering to any group

of people in the Province an exemption to the general rule that everyone in a

proceeding is a compellable witness. And I indicated at that time that because

of that reluctance it took me quite some time to assent because I was a party to

signing the Cabinet paper and to ask Cabinet to consider this and to eventually

approve it. My reluctance, as I said, was as a lawyer and because of the general

legal principle that any person who in a matter has any evidence to offer should

come forward, if they are not prepared to do it voluntarily be compelled to do

it.

On the other hand, as I said the other day, and I

specifically want to deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for St.

John's East Extern which I believe is a legitimate point and one which I think

expressed in a very heartfelt manner. It was my concern as well as to whether or

not this would in any way cause harm to any people who want to advance their

cases before the courts, which I suppose reflects my background in the legal

area as opposed to a background in the health care sector, and I have come to

the conclusion that it would not. The reason I say that is that there is nothing

in this Bill that stops documents or persons from being compellable in a court

proceeding. If you note, for example, it does specifically say that in

sub-section 3 on page 4 that no report, statement -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Okay, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Sub-section 5

indicates that all the original medical or hospital records pertaining to a

person are compellable. Compellable is a word that means, in point of law, that

if there is a document or a person who can give evidence they can be forced to

be brought to court or to be produced as the case may be. Really what you have

is this does not subtract from the evidence that is available now. In other

words, there is nothing that now exists that will be taken away. The difficulty

that we have and the only reason that I have supported this Bill and brought it

to the House in conjunction with my learned colleague, the Minister of Health,

is that these committees that are there for valid reason in hospitals that are

mentioned in the act, the quality assurance which are meant to bring up the

level of health care and also the peer review committees which are meant to be

there to see how well or how poorly doctors are performing are not now

functioning. Now I will tell you frankly that the Bill does not speak well of

our medical community. Here we are, in order to get them to participate in

committees which they should voluntarily do, we have to bring in a Bill giving

exemption to them so that they can freely criticize their fellow doctors and

also their health care professionals. I frankly think that, in a sense, it is a

shame that we have to do that, but in practical reality it is important for the

Province and the health care system to have these committees working and, on

balance, if this is what it takes perhaps we should do it and try it. But the

thing to bear in mind from a legal standpoint for any lawyer who had to carry

cases to court, and I can tell you frankly that a significant portion of my

practice was civil litigation. I had the problem from time to time of suing

doctors, and I found, quite frankly, that it was difficult if not impossible to

get a doctor to give an opinion against another doctor in the Province. So I

fully appreciate the reluctance that some Members have expressed in giving

doctors any greater privilege than now exist, and I recognize the expense if you

are a lawyer on behalf of a client, particularly an indigent client in trying to

get an expert opinion from outside the Province to support your claim. But

nevertheless the thing to bear in mind is that right now what we are saying is

that to the extent that these peer review committees and quality assurance

committees meet, the things that are discussed there cannot be forced to be

brought forward in a court. The thing to remember is that right now they are not

working. There is no evidence now that is existing in that form or fashion so

that by passing this we are not precluding or taking away, we are not

subtracting from the evidence that exists because all of the hospital records

can still be produced. As well the doctors who may or may not testify can all be

brought before a court and asked any question at all about the nature of their

proceedings and that sort of thing. The only thing that is protected is that you

cannot ask them questions nor can you have access to whatever they discussed at

the particular committee that reviewed their conduct.

The reason that is given for that, and that I have heard, and

that I accept, is that when doctors are in this forum they offer other types of

procedures. For instance, they say, did you consider doing this, or did you

consider doing that? The rationale that is given is not that this might

necessarily be better, but in the context of did you examine it, maybe we should

have tried that. So it is a process of self-examination, and their concern is

that if they are to carry that out thoroughly they do not want to have that

taken out of context and this sort of thing. I do not entirely agree with it,

but in terms of the social necessity of trying to improve our health care

system, and the advantage of having a functioning quality assurance and peer

review committee system in our hospitals, I believe it is appropriate that we

consider this exemption. As I say I do not support it in point of principle in

the sense that I think doctors should freely do this, but in terms of a

practical reality of trying to improve our health care system. If this is the

only way we can get these important committees to function, it is advisable to

do so solely on the basis that these are things that are not now functioning and

there is no evidence that is there now that we would be precluding. If I may

address the specific concern of the Member for St. John's East Extern, if, for

example, as part of this Bill we were suppressing medical documentation and said

that any medical records or anything that are in the hospital now would not be

available in court, I would not support the Bill because we would be subtracting

from it. All we are doing, I think, in this process is taking away, or not

making available in court, opinions that doctors might freely offer of a

tentative nature, or of a self-examination nature, in terms of assessing the

conduct of their peers, which is not to say if you subpoena a doctor to the

court that you could ask the doctor the same questions. The only thing you

cannot ask the doctor is whether or not he, or she, offered the same opinion at

either of these committees, or if, as well, the doctor might have expressed that

opinion, or if it might have been the subject of conversation at these

committees. In other words everything that goes on at a peer review committee

might very well be produced and talked about in a court, but not in the same

way. In other words, you could say: look, we have the record from the peer

review committee and here it is, but there is nothing to preclude you from

asking the same questions, and so on. As I may say, and you may take this as an

example, here in the House of Assembly issues are raised and when we go outside

we do interviews and we are asked the same questions. It is a similar analogy.

The only difference would be, as previously here, the press did not have access

to the recordings that were made, but that is not to say that the press could

not ask the same questions and we could not give the same answers outside. They

are a similar analogy and I suggest that what is being lost to the public is

something that does not now exist. I can tell you frankly that I did have

considerable experience as a civil litigator and I recognize the difficulty of

those sorts of suits but an important thing to bear in mind is that there is

nothing being taken away. Another issue that I am told had some impact on my

considerations in the matter was well, is that it is an important factor in

hospital accreditation across the country that the hospital have in place

functioning peer review and quality assurance committees. I am told there was

significant concern as to whether or not our hospitals would continue to receive

that accreditation if those peer review committees were not able to function. I

think it is for that reason as well, and that as one of my colleagues mentioned

in another forum, the Member for Carbonear mentioned to me that eight of the

other ten provinces have already enacted this, and I think Ontario may be

looking at it, the similar type of exemption. In bringing the legislation

forward, as I indicated, I think it is fair for me to express my concerns and

lay before the House, and I suppose the public of the Province, what my concerns

were and why I have come to the conclusion I did. As a lawyer I have an aversion

to granting exemptions but in the general interest of social policy in the

Province I think it is a defensible exemption to be made. We do it in limited

circumstances otherwise. For example, if you want to take the analogy further,

why should what a client says to his or her lawyer be exempt from being produced

in court, except for the fact that a lawyer, if he or she is to defend his or

her client, must be able to learn everything there is, and you cannot undermine

the person's right to self defence. But on another forum you could make a case

that it should be able to be produced.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say in closing that I did have

some misgivings but I have resolved those. I hope to some extent I have allayed

some of the fears expressed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the Member for

Humber Valley, and the Member for St. John's East who are in the House today. I

think, notwithstanding these concerns, the thing to remember in doing this is

that we are not subtracting anything from the evidence that is now available for

any person who is injured in a hospital, or has any issue with the treatment

afforded by a medical professional. All we are doing is saying if there is

another level of evaluation carried out by a hospital, or in that hospital

setting, whether it is among the doctors or the general hospital personnel, that

those discussions themselves, and only in themselves, will not be available, so

I suppose in answer to the question from the Member for St. John's East Extern,

I frankly feel that, this does not in any way offer any harm to the members of

the public. It certainly does not lessen the chances in litigation and my hope

is, it will help us improve our health system by giving this privilege which is

one that I do not think should be afforded to very many groups (inaudible).

I, therefore move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a Bill, "An Act To Amend The Evidence Act," read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

(Bill No. 4)

MR. BAKER: Order 11, Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 7.

Motion, second reading of a Bill, "An Act To Revise And Amend

The Law Respecting Pensions For The Members Of The Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary And The St. John's Fire Department And The Staff Of Her Majesty's

Penitentiary." (Bill No. 7)

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

Before I recognize the hon. Minister of Finance, I would like

to advise hon. Members of the questions for the Late Show at 4:30, and question

No.1 is from the hon. Member for Grand Falls, the Opposition House Leader, who

is not satisfied with the answer from the Premier on Unemployment. The second

question is from the hon. Member for Kilbride, he is not satisfied with the

Premier's answer to my question concerning Amalgamation. The third Question is

from the hon. Member for Humber East, who is a great writer: I am not satisfied

with the Premier's response to my question about the Government's intentions

regarding outstanding amalgamation proposals for municipalities outside the

northeast Avalon area. I would like to discuss this question at the late show

this afternoon, that is from the hon. Member for Humber East.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a privilege

for me to introduce this particular Bill; it is one of the Bills that I would

like to introduce but before doing so, I would like to say that I have just been

handed a note saying that - and the Member for St. John's East will be very

interested in this - that Moody's Investors Services, has just announced that

Ontario is downgraded from Aaa to Aa (2). This is a two level down grade,

Ontario is now below B.C. and Alberta which are both at Aa (1) at Moody's;

Standard and Poors have not changed their rating. Mr. Speaker, this is a very

serious question and we will be discussing it later, but, to come back to Bill

Bill 7, applies to our uniform services, to members of the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the St. John's Fire Department and the staff of

Her Majesty's Penitentiary. What we have done in principle with this Bill, Mr.

Speaker, is to come to grips in this Bill as we have in the Public Service

Pensions Act Bill and also with the Teachers Pensions, we have come to grips

with the serious unfunded liability of these plans, just as the Province's debt

is a major concern of ours, so is this growing, unfunded liability, which up to

this point has not been appropriately addressed and we have to address these. We

cannot continue to live as if there were no tomorrow.

I do not know what has happened over the past few years, but

it seems to me that since the second world war, people have been thinking about

'there will be no tomorrow', so it does not matter what you do today; whether

you overspend or not, and that philosophy which has crept into the western

societies over the past several years and which we are now coming to grips with,

is really destroying the future; it is burdening the children and the grand

children and the great grand children with the irresponsible behaviours of

today.

Now I have great faith in the future of this Province, great

faith in the future of this country, great faith in the future of this planet.

It is not that there is no future and to heck with tomorrow, we have to be

concerned about tomorrow, because the future has great potential, and in order

to come to grips with the future, we must come to grips with the debts of the

present and not destroy our future by overspending.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Now, what we are doing with this bill is

coming to grips with three major principles. First, we are going to meet the

current service costs. In other words, every year, the Government and the

employees are going to share the costs of the additional pension benefits that

accumulate as a result of another year's work. Up until now, we have not been

paying for the debts that we have accumulated, and we must do so.

The other thing we want to do in this is to bring our pension

legislation in tune with the federal pension tax reform proposals. The Federal

Government has brought in certain tax reform proposals with respect to pensions.

For instance, the 2 per cent accrual rate, rather than higher accrual rates, and

certain other things, and we brought our pension plans in conformity to these

federal regulations, in order for an employee to contribute to be able to have

these deductions from their income tax, and so on.

And the third set of criteria, principles, if you like, that

guided us in bringing in this bill, was the national pension reform consensus,

where, on a national basis, it is generally agreed the consensus is that certain

reforms are appropriate for pension plans, one of which is that survivors'

benefits should be increased. And as I go through now, I will outline some of

the changes that we are proposing in the Uniform Services Pension Plan. But,

first, I should say, in order for Members to fully appreciate what is happening,

that we have given members of the uniform services, who have nineteen years or

more of pensionable service, the option to elect to stay with the old plan or to

come to our reform plan. So, that option is only there for people who have

nineteen years or more of pensionable service. We are not forcing them to get on

the new plan, but if they choose to stay with the old plan, then we have to

increase the contributions by them and by Government, in order to pay for the

enhanced benefits under the old plan. But we will not be extending the option to

everybody. Everybody else will move under the new plan.

Let me indicate some of the major changes. I do not want to

get into the Committee stage at the moment and talk about what we normally talk

about, the details, but I do want to point out some things for hon. members so

that they could probably be prepared for that time when we get into Committee.

First of all, as in the Public Service Pension Plan, the new

plan will increase survivors' benefits from 55 per cent to 60 per cent. That is

part of the national pension reform consensus. People on the old plan, though,

will continue with the 55 per cent benefit for survivors. So, when someone dies,

the survivor gets 60 per cent of the pension - now, it is 55 per cent - and

those who elect to remain on the old plan will stay at 55 per cent.

The new plan provides for the splitting of pension benefits

upon marriage breakdown, and that is something we saw that we are introducing in

the Public Service Pension Plan, as well. That benefit, the splitting of pension

benefits upon marriage breakdown, is also going to apply to those members who

elect to remain under the old plan.

We are going to be increasing employee contributions to the

new Uniform Services Pension Plan by about 2.5 per cent, and that is contained

Section 6 of the bill. If members want to look at

Section 6 of the bill, they

will see that

Section 6 indicates that the contribution has been raised, and

that people who elect to remain on the old plan will pay an additional 3.5 per

cent. So, the contribution rates for people who elect to remain on the old plan

have gone up considerably, in order to cover the current service costs of that

plan.

We have increased the cost to employees who wish to purchase

prior pensionable services. That is covered under

Section 10, too. That has been

increased, so if anyone wants to buy up back time, they have to pay the

reasonable cost of that back time.

We have reduced the vesting period. Up until now, a person

had to have ten years in, in order to get any sort of a pension, whatever years,

and now that has been reduced to five. The national reform concensus suggested

that that eventually go down to two years, but, at the moment, we feel five

years is an improvement. Hopefully, when we can, we might be able to afford to

administer the plan with two years, but, at the moment, we are suggesting five

years.

Section 19 (1) brings in the accrual rate, that from now on

every year of pensionable salary will provide a 2 per cent increase in pension.

Up until now, people in the uniform services have been compelled to retire,

unless they are officers, after twenty-five years of service. Now, people are

permitted to stay beyond that, if they wish.

Another change, is the computation of the salary under which

a person is pensioned. That is contained under Sub-section (2) (l). Now,

pensionable salary means the average of the best three years prior to

retirement. Under the old plan, it was the highest level of salary, so that, if

a person retired from the uniform services, the pension was calculated on the

number of years times the last salary that the person earned, the salary at the

last day of employment. That benefit has been reduced now, under the new plan,

to take the average of three years, as it is in most other plans. Some of the

plans are five years, but this particular one will be three, instead of now,

where it is the last day.

So, we have retained disability retirements, as we have with

the public service. So, if someone becomes disabled, they can still go out on a

disability pension. We had thought, first, that we would bring in some form of

insurance, which might be better. An insurance is better for some. If we had

brought in an insurance plan, a young person, who had become disabled, would be

able to go out with a very hefty insurance. But, if they have only a few years

in, they will not get much of a disability pension. So, one of the things about

a disability pension that is not good, is that a person who becomes disabled at

a young age does not get much of a pension,

whereas, if it were an insurance, it

would be better. It was recommended to us by a study that we had carried out

that, at this time, the cost of introducing such an insurance scheme, compulsory

for everybody, would be a bit too high for us. So, we are going to forego that

for the present, but perhaps we will revisit that later on, as the economy of

the Province improves. At the moment, we are going to stick with the disability

pension, which, for people who become disabled late in life, is much better than

any other plan. We will be eliminating redundancy pensions once this becomes

effective, and that is another change.

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous other details which I will

not get into at the moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) now, you can do in Committee.

DR. KITCHEN: Alright, well, we will do it in Committee,

but, in the interests of allowing other people to have their comments on this,

Mr. Speaker, I will stop speaking, at the moment.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was

hoping the Minister would carry on with some more explanations of this bill, so

I would not have to get up and bore the hon. Minister of Social Services to

death. But, I guess, for forty-five minutes, at least, he is going to sit there

and listen to some explanations of what is happening in this proposed change to

the bill.

I understand the Minister's explanation for trying to get

some control over unfunded liability in this bill, and it is very hard to argue

against. But, what I do have problems with, are the people who have taken up

employment with the three different branches that are affected by this Uniform

Services Pensions Act. They have worked for different periods of time with the

understanding that they have a certain pension benefit being built up every year

that they are working. And the unfortunate part of this bill is that it is going

to change in midstream, the plans of the people who accepted jobs some five,

ten, fifteen and even up to twenty years ago.

Mr. Speaker, that does not seem fair to me. It certainly does

not show a fairness and balance that this Premier always talks about. But when

the hon. Minister was speaking first, he talked about the great spenders ever

since the Second World War, that everyone wanted to continue to spend. The

greatest spender that I recall in my time was Pierre Trudeau. He was the one who

let things get completely out of hand. Probably, one of the reasons why we are

in some of the financial mess that this country is in now, was because of that

great spender. Probably, too, that is one of the reasons why we have the great

Scrooge as Minister of Finance in our Province right now.

I understand that one of the reasons why this bill is being

changed had to do with a contract being negotiated last year by the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary Association, and an arbitration award associated with

that contract. It was explained to our Committee, the Government Services

Legislation Review Committee, that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

Association allowed to have their contract put up for negotiation and, during

that negotiation and arbitration, the Constabulary members, being a young force

at present, opted to lose some benefits in their pension plan and to take

immediate up front raises, and I believe it was something like an 8 per cent

increase in salary. And, because it is now a young Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary Association, they were willing to accept it. Now, unfortunately,

once they opened the contract and this pension plan for negotiations, the

Government continued with the same agreement that the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary Association had, and forced it on other members.

MR. WOODFORD: Where is your cap?

MR. R. AYLWARD: My cap, today, is hanging up on the road

into the Goulds so that when people come to the meeting, tonight, they will know

exactly where to go.

But I cannot be sidetracked, Mr. Speaker. This bill is much

too important to the people who are affected by it. Now I understand that the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, as I said, got an arbitration award of 8 per

cent in the contract negotiations and they gave up some of their pension

benefits. They voted on it and accepted it. That is the way it was explained to

our Committee, as we met with different groups.

They gave pension benefits and the arbitrator gave him an

award, yes. But they were - and they voted on it and accepted it or are willing

to accept it and the reason being is that this is a young force and they need

money immediately to raise their families and they are not thinking too far on

pension benefits as all of us, when we were younger, happened to be doing. But,

Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate part of that is when the arbitrator ruled on it it

meant that the people who did not get this arbitration award, who did not get

this 8 per cent increase in wages were also dragged into the same kind of a

pension deal that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary got in their arbitration,

and the ones who are going to be hurt most, I guess, even now that the firemen

and the warders, I believe, but the firemen in particular are negotiating their

contract and will probably go before an arbitrator also. They will make their

arguments based on what they are going to lose in their pension, they will make

their arguments and probably the arbitrator will see that it was not fair for

the constabulary to get these wage benefits, and he will probably give them to

the warders and the firemen also; firepersons I think they are called now. Fire

fighters, that is what it is.

Mr. Speaker, the ones who are hurt most by what is happening

in this - if I could find my notes here - will be the officers involved with the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the officers at the penitentiary and the

officers at the fire hall because when management raises were given out some

years ago it - I am just trying to find out the proper names of them - when the

management raises were given out for the public service generally a few years

ago, the officers at the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, fire hall and the

warders were given the same 2 per cent increase that all public service managers

got.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, I do not remember ever employing a

cucumber worker actually. I am growing strawberries, I am not growing cucumbers.

The cucumbers failed, that is gone now. It is in the past, that is gone now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: That is in the past now. At the present

time we have to try to deal with a Clyde lied campaign and other things so we

will not bother with the cucumbers, we will just concentrate on what is

happening today. I know the Minister likes to live in the past - I know he loves

to live in the past, but I will just ignore that and we will carry on with the

present campaign that is going around with bumper stickers on Members opposite's

trucks, especially the Members that are upset with the leader that they have

now. There are some bumper stickers appearing on them. And, Mr. Speaker, the

Minister of Social Services holds up an exhibit every now and then, Mr. Speaker,

and I guess I will be allowed to hold up an exhibit too if the Minister of

Social Services is allowed to. But, probably that could be unparliamentary. That

might be unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, so I will not bother to get into the row

with the Minister of Social Services. But if he wanted to I could haul out

badges, bumper stickers and other posters, Mr. Speaker, but I am not allowed to

wear a hat while I am standing. But I suppose I could lay this on my desk and

read it into the record if we wanted to do that, but I have not got time for

that. I have to get on with the importance of this debate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the policemen -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the officers down at the

constabulary - I just want to go over a list of some of the people who made

presentations to us.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, some of the people who

appeared before our Committee, a Committee that works very well, I must say, and

we listened attentively to all the concerns that were brought to us, and there

were many.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Committees.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I was late for several of the meeti