December

13, 1993

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 34

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform this hon. House, and the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that at approximately 5:20 p.m. on the

afternoon of Friday, December 10, 1993, Dr. Angus Bruneau, Chairman, President

and Chief Executive Officer of Fortis Inc., informed Mr. David Mercer, President

of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, that the Board of Fortis has concluded that

it would be inappropriate to continue discussions toward the establishment of a

single investor-owned electrical utility to serve our Province.

I understand that this decision by Fortis reflects the fact

that the parties have been unable to reach agreement on the fundamental terms of

the proposed transaction, and they believe that it will not be possible to reach

an agreement which meets government's expectations and is fair to their

shareholders.

No further discussions between the parties are planned.

Mr. Speaker, in light of this development, government intends

to pursue consideration of other alternatives for the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Thank you.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say that we

are not overly surprised, on this side of the House, that Fortis has decided to

discontinue discussions. We had heard that rumour shortly after the Premier

announced that discussions were going to take place, that Fortis were not overly

anxious in terms of the type of negotiations that were taking place.

The only thing that is surprising, let me say, is that it was

last week in this House, after the Premier had given indication that the talks

were broken off, that the Minister of Mines and Energy gave an indication, very

strongly, that the talks were on again, negotiations had taken place over the

weekend, and everything was up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

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

again it appears, like the situation with the Minister of Fisheries, the Premier

does not tell his ministers what is taking place.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the information that we now have,

both from public reports earlier this morning and now by the minister's

statement, can I ask the Premier if he could tell us a little bit more about why

Fortis broke off the negotiations? What was it specifically that Fortis

rejected?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: What fundamental -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm having trouble hearing the hon. Leader of the Opposition

above some of the conversations taking place.

If the hon. Leader could continue.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I need to repeat

it. I think the Premier got the gist of my question. What fundamental terms did

Fortis reject which the minister referred to in his statement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I wasn't at any of the negotiations so I

don't know the detail, but I understand the circumstances to be this, or to be

able to be reduced to essentially this.

Fortis viewed it from a point of view of really wanting to

take over Hydro. The Province disagreed with that approach. When the initial

discussion was held certain ground rules were laid out. The Province would

insist that the executive management of the new company and the board of

directors of the new company would be structured in such a way that they would

be really subject to the Province's approval. Fortis were made aware that the

Province was simply not prepared to turn over to a corporation managed by the

existing management committee of Fortis the entire hydro-electric assets of the

Province.

That has nothing to do personally with the individuals who

are there. As a matter of principle the Province wanted to put together a

corporation that would be genuinely a merger of the two, that would reflect the

level of assets that the Province and its people were putting in it, and so the

propriety of having the Province determine the basic thrust and executive

management of the company. Fortis didn't see this as being in their interest,

they didn't see it as being sufficiently beneficial to their shareholders, as

they've said in their release. They of course have the right to decide that.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. On a

supplementary I would like to try to find out precisely and to get on the record

how the government intends now to proceed, in view of this action taken by

Fortis. Is it possible, for example, that the government might in fact revise

its position in order to try to get Fortis back to the table, or is that off

totally? Is it possible that the government might abandon altogether the idea of

privatizing Hydro? Or will you be proceeding specifically, clearly, full speed

ahead, on the idea of privatization on a stand alone basis?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Theoretically, I suppose, anything in this

world is possible, so I can't say that any specific thing is not possible. I

would say the government has no intention whatsoever of revising its basic

policies. The government's decision at the moment is, if we are not able to

achieve the fundamental objectives that we set out for merger, merger will not

take place. We do not intend to pursue merger or to adjust, no intention at this

stage of adjusting those fundamental objectives as far as merger is concerned.

Again, it is theoretically possible that privatization could not take place, but

our intention is to proceed with privatization of Hydro on a stand alone basis,

and the committee has been directed to move along those lines. Now that means

doing a full, detailed assessment of all of the pros and cons, doing an

assessment of how much money we could get for the sale of Hydro, what would be

the impact on hydroelectric rates and the relative pros and cons of it, and all

of those things would be considered before any final decision is made.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I presume all of those kinds of things were

done before you looked at the merger as well, cost and all that kind of stuff,

and it is with that in mind, that I would like to ask the Premier this: Now that

these talks are off and Fortis has pulled out of the talks, will the Premier

release the full report that was prepared by Hydro's, and government's own

financial advisers for that matter, on the feasibility of privatizing Hydro,

will he make that report public now, that information public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. We will not make that

public while we are in the process of proceeding with privatization because I

don't want to do anything that would prejudice the right of the people of this

Province to get the maximum benefit of the privatization of Hydro.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I will just pursue the

questioning briefly once more with a final supplementary for now, at least.

This pull out of Fortis I guess, the Premier chuckled, I

guess -

PREMIER WELLS: This is a final supplementary for now is

it?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, that means there will be more final

supplementaries in the days ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier or suggest to the

Premier, first of all, that the end of these discussions and negotiations gives

the government an excellent opportunity now to review its initial decision to

proceed with the privatization of Hydro, and it gives government a chance to

review all of that now. In light of public opinion, which is clearly against

privatization, I want to ask him: will he take this opportunity to step back

from this whole idea, which clearly is against public opinion, but if he is

still hell-bent and determined to push privatization of Hydro, will he not

consider using a better process, perhaps drafting a White Paper, perhaps having

public hearings around the Province to give people a chance to have a say and to

have some input into the whole thing, in other words, will he consider changing

his attitude and his approach on this very important matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government made its

decision on the basis of the best advice it could get and in a manner consistent

with the basic policy that was developed by the government. The government has

been following, fairly firmly, the basic Strategic Economic Plan approach of

getting government out of the commercial sector and giving the private sector of

this Province a chance to succeed. That is fundamental government policy and we

intend to continue with that. There is no reason to alter that policy so we

intend to continue along those lines.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the people who were doing this are

continuing on with the objective of putting together a proposal for the

privatization of Hydro that will be beneficial for this Province. If, in the

end, what they come up with is not in the best interest of this Province, we

will not proceed with it. If it is in the best interest of this Province, we

will most assuredly proceed with it. Now, I have to tell hon. members that we

couldn't really proceed with that kind of endeavour without a full public debate

in this House, but I have no intention of having the public debate carried on on

an uninformed or an ill-informed basic. The work is going to be done to gather

the appropriate information before ever the debate takes place. As and when that

is done and an appropriate proposal is developed it will be brought before this

House for full consideration.

MR. SIMMS: You would save the taxpayers hundreds of

thousands of dollars (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to

the Minister of Education. Recommendations 136 to 140 of the Royal Commission on

Education deal with the prudent and wise use of valuable instructional time in

the classrooms of this Province. These recommendations arise from numerous

studies that show too much school time is lost in non-instructional activities

and disruptions to teaching. Since all research logically indicates a positive

relationship between time spent on instruction and student achievement, can the

minister tell the House today what steps his department has initiated to

implement strategies to increase on task time in the school system?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows,

government has appointed a person to oversee the implementation of the Royal

Commission, the recommendation of the Williams report. Dr. Crocker and his group

have put in place an action plan which they are using. Basically, it is divided

into twelve different sections and one of these sections deals with time on

task, as it is referred to, the amount of time being used in the schools. One of

the things we are process of doing is determining how to deal with the

recommendation that the school year be lengthened and that better use be made of

the school year which we already have there, and we are coming at that problem

from this angle: at the present time, there are 185 days allocated to the school

system, and anything that goes on has to come out of these 185 days. We are

looking at making the 185 days instructional time. We are trying to change

around the way of thinking so that everything that happens in addition to

instruction will be added on instead of being taken off. This is one of the ways

we are looking at to get at that problem, Mr. Speaker, but it is an ongoing

process being taken very seriously. The Royal Commission did tell us that that

was a problem and it is being dealt with.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we all recognize that the

central goal of schooling is academic excellence; however, as the minister has

indicated, there is a lot of time lost. For example, three studies indicated

various amounts of time lost, one said forty-seven days and another said

fifty-seven days. This is time lost for non-instructional activities such as

inservice programs, absenteeism, bad weather, etcetera. Mr. Speaker, as the

minister indicated, this indicates that our children are on task for about

120-130 school days a year. I ask the minister if he would broaden his dialogue

to include the school boards of the Province, the Newfoundland and Labrador

Teachers' Association and the Newfoundland and Labrador Home and School

Association, in attempting to find the resolution to this problem?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I should also point out, if the

hon. member will allow me, another of the areas we are looking at is that of the

public exams. As the hon. member will know, they are now part of the school

year. We are also looking into the possibility of having the school exams after

the school year as it used to be done when he and I were in school.

The involvement of interest groups, Mr. Speaker, we are doing

that to the maximum extent, I suppose. The hon. member will know that I have an

advisory committee which meets from time to time. We are meeting again, I

believe it is on Friday of this week, for an all-day meeting. That group is made

up of representation from the NTA, the Newfoundland and Labrador School Trustees

Association, the Denominational Education Councils, the Parent-Teachers, it is a

group made up of fifteen or twenty people which broadly represents all the

various interest groups around the Province. In addition to that, the

Newfoundland Teachers' Association and the Department of Education, itself,

process, where once every month I personally, with my deputy and Dr. Crocker,

sit down with the NTA to discuss whatever contribution they have to make.

Mr. Speaker, some would argue that that is not enough input,

but now remember, the royal commission had in excess of 25,000 people who made

their views known. We don't want to carry on another royal commission over and

over, except to say that we have a group which is broadly representative of the

various interest groups, and the department is wide open for letters or phone

calls or whatever contribution other people would want to make.

In my opinion, I believe that it has been set out what we

intend to do. We've spoken to the people, we've heard the reply. I think now we

have to get on and do what the people have been asking us to do, Mr. Speaker.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to hear the

minister's comments. Of course we want to draw attention specifically to

recommendation 139 of the royal commission report. It calls upon the minister to

"...implement immediately a comprehensive plan to monitor over a three-year

period (

a) the use of instructional time...." I ask the minister if the

parameters for that monitoring committee have been established, and to indicate

to the House and to the citizens of this Province what the general guidelines

are for that monitoring committee.

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We haven't as such set the

committee in place yet because we are thinking in terms of even broadening it to

include accountability in a much broader sense as well. One of the weaknesses

with the education system in this Province is that there is not a whole lot of

accountability there. The instructional time is one very excellent example that

the hon. member used. He says the estimate is anywhere from 120 to 130 days. He

is quite right about that. It may be even worse. This doesn't take into

consideration the amount of time which is used getting from one class to the

other. Classes run back to back without a ten minute break in some schools to

get from one to the other. That is all taken in. We are looking at that

recommendation, but we are thinking we might broaden it so we can get

accountability in general, because there are a lot of other areas which need

some accountability.

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

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

a question for the Premier. The Minister of Fisheries has consistently, I guess

in the last twelve months, said that in dealing with the processing sector of

the fishing industry it should be left to the marketplace to decide, the market

forces. As recently, I think it was last Thursday, I questioned the minister on

the Cashin task force report and asked him would the provincial government be

supporting the concept of the fishing industry renewal boards, as recommended by

Mr. Cashin. In the last couple of days the Premier is reported to support, I

guess, the Cashin recommendation of fishing industry renewal boards to deal with

processing capacity reduction and consolidation.

Could the Premier inform the House today what is the official

position of the provincial government? Is it to let the processing sector fall

to the marketplace, the market forces decide, or will the provincial government

participate in the decision making process, and policy and criteria, for

processing capacity reduction and consolidation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, what I said to the media when

they asked me about it was that I had not had a chance to see the report, what I

wanted to do was have a chance to look at. They said: the minister said this,

and you think there may be a place for fishing industry renewal boards. I think

indeed there may be a place for fishing industry renewal boards. I don't agree

that they should necessarily make a decision that there is going to be a plant

located here, and this one is going to close, and that one is going to close,

and this one is going to be paid that, and someone else is going to be paid

something else. I disagree, basically, with that recommendation. I've never

agreed with it in the past.

Whether the government will alter its position - and that is

what the Minister of Fisheries has said - now whether the government will alter

its position and say: okay, we are prepared to have a fishing industry renewal

board make these decisions, that is a decision that the government can only come

to after we've had adequate time to assess the full impact of the

recommendations made by Mr. Cashin. When that is done, either the Minister of

Fisheries or I will state fully the government's position on the issue. As I

told the media the other day when they spoke to me about it, I wanted to wait

until we had an opportunity to see the full recommendations and consider their

impact before we would state government's position on the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Reports again - and they are only

reports - and I do not know if they are true or not, but apparently the Premier

met with Mr. Cashin during the task force process; you met and discussed these

kinds of issues with him.

Apparently the Premier, at that time, indicated support for

the concept and, I guess, since the report has been released. Reports again are

saying that the Premier supports the concept.

Mr. Cashin recommends a joint strategy by the federal and

provincial government, that they develop policies and criteria, I guess, to give

to the Fishing Industry Renewal Board to implement. So will the Province be

participating in a joint strategy, let me ask the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, the Province would be most anxious to

participate in a joint strategy for the future management of the fishery - not

just one selected aspect of it, who is going to pay who what, and how much for

what. We want a joint management for all aspects of the fishery. We think that

is crucial if we are to have a successful fishery in the future; so yes, the

Province is most anxious to participate jointly with the federal government in

all future aspects of the management of the fishery, but we are not prepared

just to participate jointly on one selective little basis and then turn the rest

of it over to somebody else, no, we would not.

If that is all the Fishery Industry Renewal Board are going

to do, we are not interested, I can tell you that, unless the government changes

its policy on the basis of some very persuasive argument; but the government's

policy to date, and there is no change in it, from the minister's point of view

or from mine, unless the Fishing Industry Renewal Board is going to do something

other than make a decision as to where plants are going to be located. We are

not interested in participating only in that.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the Opposition House

Leader.

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

I am sure, once the Premier gets a chance to look at the

report, he will see that it is more wide ranging than that. There are references

to harvesting and other things there that will have to be considered and dealt

with as well.

Realizing that it is early, and the Premier probably has not

had a good look at it, in talking about a joint strategy in policies criteria,

there is also reference in the report to the Province participating financially

with the federal government in a number of aspects. Does the Premier envisage

that the Province might participate financially in trying to deal with the

problems of processing capacity, harvesting, and other problems, early

retirement and so on? Does he anticipate that the Province might cost share some

of those programs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say at this moment

what the Province can or cannot do, financially. The Minister of Finance is

going to make those decisions, or make those announcements, on behalf of the

government, in the Budget. What I can say is, on a go forward basis, managing

the fishery on a go forward basis, we are prepared to participate financially

with the federal government in managing overall in the fishery.

That does not mean that we expect the federal government to

take any responsibility for the kinds of things that generally fall within the

Province's jurisdiction. We do not expect the federal government to expect us to

pay for things that fall within their jurisdiction, but we expect to share with

the federal government on a reasonable basis the cost of jointly managing the

fishery and jointly making the decisions that are necessary.

We do not expect to share with the federal government the

cost of policing the North Atlantic. That is for the navy. That is the federal

government's responsibility. We do not expect the federal government to pay the

cost of doing the monitoring and management of the fish plants. That is our

normal expenditure. We will do that, but we will share with the federal

government the cost of running a joint management board and share it on an

ongoing basis.

Now in terms of programs, I have just been meeting with Mr.

Axworthy. I had a very good meeting with him, incidentally. It went very, very

well, and we have agreed that the federal and provincial governments must work

together in order to develop the best possible solutions to the massive problems

that have been caused to individuals who were engaged in the fishery, to the

overall economy of the Province as a result of the closure of the groundfish

fishery.

So I would expect that we will be participating to some

degree with the federal government in some aspects of that, but I cannot

pre-state to the House of Assembly now that we are going to put up this much

money, or we are going to agree to take that portion of responsibility. We do

not have very much in the way of resources to do it, and the hon. member will

remember that I kept questioning their proposition that we should rush in and

take this responsibility as a Province. I disagree with that approach, primarily

because we do not have either the financial resources or the responsibility for

the decisions that caused it.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to revisit some questions I had for the Minister

of Finance on Friday dealing with the amendments to the Tobacco and Gasoline Tax

Act. The minister told us he is proposing to bring in some regulations to the

amendments that were passed last year and to move that forward. Would he like to

tell us: Why does he feel that government has a right to receive taxes in

advance of them being collected at the retail level, thus in fact, forcing the

private sector to finance government for that period of time? And would the

minister like to tell us if he proposes to do that, is he prepared to pay

government's bills on day one, as well, and stop using private sector money for

thirty to sixty days?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the hon. member

understands the situation.

MR. WINDSOR: I do.

MR. BAKER: His question indicates that he lacks a little

bit of understanding in terms of the nature of the problem. When wholesalers

sell to retailers, by and large, the money is due at that point in terms of the

tobacco tax and the gasoline tax, so that money is due now. The wholesalers may

extend credit to the retailers for a period of time and so on, but that tax is

due, because of the nature of it, before it is actually collected at the retail

level; that is the way things have been going and that tax is due at that point.

The tax is collected for us by the wholesalers, and all we

are saying is, the wholesalers are collecting the tax for us at the point where

they make their sale to the retailers and the tax is then due to them; at that

point, we want the government's money to be set aside in a trust account so it

then becomes the property of the people of the Province, that is all we are

saying. It is not insisting on payment up front, that is the way things have

gone on with that tax for a number of years. It is collected by the wholesalers,

we are simply saying that should then be put in a trust account for protection,

if the money belongs to the people of the Province at that point in time. This

is not like a normal transaction where I go out and do some work and somebody

just has thirty days to pay it, it is not the normal type of transaction. That

money is collected for the people of the Province and we are saying that we, at

that point, want it protected on behalf of the people of the Province.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I submit to the

minister, it is exactly the same. The tax is collected by the retailer on behalf

of the Province, eventually passed to the wholesaler, as the cost of the product

is collected by the retailer and eventually passed along. The minister wants it

in advance. Could the minister tell us then, if he is concerned, as he has just

said, to protect the taxpayers of the Province from losing money in the event of

bankruptcy or default - and that is a legitimate problem -if he is so concerned

about that, why will he not consider accepting a bond, as is done in the

Province of Quebec? That gives all the protection that would be needed to the

taxpayer, it is acceptable in Quebec, why is it not acceptable to this minister,

or is the fact, Mr. Speaker, the real reason this minister is so desperate for a

few dollars that he wants to get his taxes a bit early?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there are two issues here. One is

the issue that the hon. member deals with, but the other issue, is the issue of

what is right. The money, at that point in time, belongs to the taxpayers of the

Province. Now, I suppose the argument could be made that we should go to bonding

or personal guarantees and all kinds of things to ensure that if a bankruptcy

occurs, then we get our money; but the second issue is, what's right, and it is

right that at the moment the tax, belongs to the people of the Province, at that

moment it should be protected for the people of the Province, it is the right

way to do things. I am sure the hon. member will struggle with that concept but

it is the right way to do it.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, I don't have a problem with protecting

it, but the minister doesn't protect the private sector. He owes money to the

private sector the minute government incurs a bill, too, but he chooses to take

thirty or sixty days to pay. Would the minister tell me this, Mr. Speaker: Last

year, during the debate on these bills, the minister told us that he was looking

at RST, as well; is the minister now proposing to bring in similar amendments to

deal with RST and are we now going to be faced with setting up trust accounts

for tens of thousands of small businesses, store owners, corner stores, anything

at all in this Province so that the minister could get his RST up front?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we are currently dealing with the

Gasoline and Tobacco Tax, not the RST. We are currently developing regulations

to allow for this collection and to do it in such a way that it will cause the

least disruption. I would say to the hon. member that we are currently looking

at the RST situation, certainly, and

whereas we have not yet developed

regulations and so on or gone that far, or even introduced legislation into this

House yet, that is a possibility we are considering, but again, if we do that,

it will be done in such a way as to cause the least disruption and the least

problems for the businessmen.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Social Services. It is my

understanding that the Salvation Army group home for young offenders in open

custody at Corner Brook has been told to close its doors in the next few weeks.

There are currently twelve open-custody group homes in this Province. I would

like to ask the minister if it is government's plan to close at least seven of

those homes before the end of the fiscal year?

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

MR. LUSH: I tell the hon. member that in line with the

recommendations of the Hughes Commission, we give more emphasis to the

community-based operation as opposed to the group-type custody home. Yes, it is

the philosophy of the department to close many of these institutional type homes

in favour of the more community based operation which is the recommendation of

many people today in child welfare.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister knows that it will be

difficult to find foster homes for some of the young people who are now cared

for in these group homes. Will the closure of more than half the group homes in

the Province leave the courts with no choice but to sentence young people to

closed custody at places such as Whitbourne?

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

MR. LUSH: No, Mr. Speaker, the department has been

working on this. We have a plan and we are only closing in those areas where we

know that we have the arrangements to take care of these people. I tell the hon.

gentleman that it is not only foster homes we are looking at. The policy today

and the philosophy of this department is to keep people at home, to keep young

people at home, and many of these we find, with the supports we will give them,

there will be no necessity -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: If the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West would like an answer he could listen.

MR. TOBIN: He is talking about the Young Offenders Act

now.

MR. LUSH: I am talking about the Young Offenders Act, as

well. We are hoping that by the supports we will set up, we will not have to

send our young offenders to these institutional-type homes, particularly the

home that the hon. gentleman mentions, the Youth Correctional Centre at

Whitbourne.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

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

public galleries the Deputy Mayor of St. George's, Hazel McIssac, who is also a

former member of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few days ago, I

had the opportunity to attend an awards night at the R. W. Parsons Pentecostal

Collegiate in Robert's Arm, and they have seen fit to send me the following

petition:

`We, the undersigned, do hereby express our dissatisfaction

with government's proposed model for reforming the education system.

Specifically, we object to any means whereby our rights as citizens of the

Province and this country, may be jeopardized. We believe that denominational

education goes beyond the areas of religious instruction, and limiting the

Pentecostal Assemblies in the manner described by the government, is an

infringement upon our rights.'

Mr. Speaker, the core, I think, of this petition which was

signed by 242 people, 243 including myself, goes basically to what we mean by

denominational education. The proposal by government allowing for religious

instruction by various churches living in an area would at best probably give a

tenth of a constitutional right to the churches involved.

Mr. Speaker, the Pentecostal school system grew up out of

necessity over the years. There was a shameful time, not that long ago in our

history, when people of Pentecostal faith were denied access to schools run by

other denominations. Fortunately, today, Mr. Speaker, such is not the case, but

we have, instead, a Pentecostal school system, a system of which the

Pentecostals, themselves, are rightly and justly proud. They feel that just

allowing for religious instruction in a school is not in any way, shape or form

actual denominational education. Denominational education involves the whole

person, the whole community, it involves the setting of an ambience, a moral

structure in a school system and this would not be the case under the

government's new system.

Mr. Speaker, the Pentecostals feel that their rights have

been infringed upon, that giving them just a religion class is, indeed, merely

giving them a tenth of a right, and I don't really know if it is possible to

give a tenth of a right. They call upon this hon. House of Assembly to change

their point of view on this matter and give them back what is rightfully theirs

under the Constitution. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the petition

presented by my colleague and to offer congratulations to the 242 residents of

Green Bay district who signed the petition. The petition asks this hon. House to

reflect on the proposals to reform the education system and I do believe that

process of reflection has already been noted in this hon. House in the past

several days. The policy of the Progressive Conservative Party is outlined in

our policy manuals and it was communicated to the citizens of this Province in

the days leading up to the May 30 election. We recognize the desire for reforms

in the education system, we recognize that there are great inefficiencies that

have to be addressed and we fully support all the efforts of the government and

the churches to promote efficiency and the sharing of services.

We note in the Province many excellent examples where

services are being shared and we certainly want to encourage that. However, the

policy of the Progressive Conservative Party, as I said in the House here on

December 10, is that we will not support non-consensual changes to the

constitutional rights enjoyed by the churches in this Province.

We believe that a consensual agreement is possible to be

reached between the representatives of the churches and the provincial

government on the restructuring proposals of the educational system. We believe

that the proposals as they have been outlined now call on all of us to initiate

meaningful dialogue, to recognize the traditional rights of all peoples, and

also to ask the government to promote an active and positive partnership between

the churches and the school system.

Mr. Speaker, I want to note as well that there are many other

issues we should be addressing in education. The issue before us every day, the

restructuring proposal, certainly is not the only issue that we have before us.

We could talk about instructional time, the classroom size, modification to the

curriculum, changes to teacher education, the condition of school buildings, the

equipment and resources available in our schools, and the need to accentuate a

positive relationship between the home and the school. It is crucial the

minister not place all his focus on the restructuring model as the sole strategy

for improving student excellence.

Mr. Speaker, as I said on Friday, I call upon the minister to

open up the dialogue, to recognize the divergent opinions and the philosophical

differences between all the partners to the educational system in our Province,

and to try his best on behalf of the government to resolve the differences and

to promote ways in which we can do it now, rather than having to have it

prolonged over many months and many years.

Thank you.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to this petition

from the people of Green Bay and assure the hon. member that the petition will

be taken, when this House sends it along, to the Department of Education, and it

will be used. We will consider everything that is presented as we attempt to

make these reforms in education.

However, I want to advise members of the House that nobody is

talking about a public, secular system of education. From time to time I see

this name turning up -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: - and it is probably -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm having trouble hearing the hon. Minister of Education

because of other conversations.

MR. DECKER: It is misleading, Mr. Speaker, because no one

that I know of is talking about a public system of education. One of the

principles on page 3 of the document, Adjusting the Course , says quite

clearly that: this model will provide for church control of religious education

and related matters, guarantee church access to schools for this purpose, and

give a church presence on school boards and provincial bodies.

The rights of the church under education will in no way be

taken away. One of the main bodies to hold those rights will be a provincial

denominational committee. Each denomination which has traditional rights will

sit on that commission. It will be a case of the Anglican people still

continuing to hold their rights individually. The Roman Catholic people will

continue to hold their rights individually. The Pentecostal people will hold

their rights individually. But they will exercise them in general terms, they

will exercise them collectively. What we are talking about is the rights will

still be held, just as they are now - no one is going to touch that, these

rights will be held - but they will be practised collectively, somewhat similar

to what the Integrated people are doing at the present time.

The Anglican Church still holds the same rights that they

held in 1949. The United Church people still hold the same rights they held in

1949. The Salvation Army people and the Presbyterian and Seventh-Day Adventists

- save the Seventh-Day Adventists - the others are exercising them collectively,

and this is what we would foresee, Mr. Speaker. So it is a red herring when hon.

members try to pretend that we are talking about a public system.

One of the strongest opponents to a secular, public, godless

system in this Province is me. I am deadly opposed to that, but this model that

we have put forward allows the protection of term 17 to remain, which allows for

all the church involvement even to a greater extent if the churches wish to use

it.

So on the one hand we have this protection, where we could

have the Lord's Prayer in our schools, where you can have preparation classes

for the sacraments, where you continue to have Christmas programs, where you

continue to teach religion, where you continue to teach catechism. It is all

there and protected by seventeen, but at the same time this model would help to

take out some of the duplication that exists, both on the school level, as well

as on the school board level, as well as on the provincial level. So truly what

we have put forward for the people of this Province to look at, is the best of

all possible worlds.

I would say to the people of Green Bay, or any other people

who are considering submitting petitions to this House, they really should get

the model and read it themselves and come to their own conclusions. I say if,

after reading it themselves, they believe in their hearts that this is wrong,

well by all means say so, and by all means do not agree with it, but do not make

your decision based on what you hear on the media, or based on what you hear an

Opposition member say, or for that matter based on what I say.

Take the model yourself. Think about how important it is to

all your children that we reform the educational system so that we can become an

achieving society. Think about all of that, read it objectively, and after you

have read it yourself, do not let Chris Decker tell you what to say or think; do

not let the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, or the Member for Green Bay; do not

let anyone else tell you what to think. Read the model, think about your

children, ask what is in their interest, and make up your own mind. That is what

the people of the Province should do, and then (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask if we could deal

first with Motion 1.

Before you call that, Your Honour, I wonder if I could have

leave of the House to address a technical problem that has come up.

Order No. 8, which refers to Bill 52, is entitled, "An Act To

Amend The Elections Act." That is the way the notice was given in the House by

me, or whoever gave it, and that is the way it had been written out by whoever

wrote it out, to give to me, or whoever did give it in the House.

In fact, the correct title of the bill is "An Act To Amend

The Election Act And The Elections Act, 1991", and I wonder if we could have

leave of the House simply to substitute the...

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My friend from Grand Bank gives leave so I

will take it then, Mr. Speaker, nobody speaking to the contrary, that the order

can be amended as such.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could deal with

Motion No. 1 before going on to second reading debates.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act (No. 2)," carried. (Bill No. 60)

On motion, Bill No. 60 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, before I go further, could I advise members

opposite that on Wednesday, which will be a Private Members' Day, we propose to

debate the motion that stands in the name of my friend from LaPoile, which was

number 3 on the Order Paper of last Wednesday.

I say to my friend from Grand Bank, who is sort of smiling in

a knowing way, that we on this side have decided that given a reasonable length

to debate, we will still be able to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I could yell more

loudly, if you wish.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I would rather (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Or my clients - my colleagues here could be

quiet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: They are my clients - the only clients I

have are this crowd here now, Sir. In this respect I do not pay very well

either.

Mr. Speaker, the point I was going to make, if it has not

escaped me entirely, is that we now have all the bills in the House, they have

all been distributed as far as I am aware.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Bill 60 has in fact been distributed. The

Clerks took the liberty - it was on my desk at least - anyway if it is not it is

on the way around, it has been printed. They are all in the House so I see no

difficulty in making the Friday target assuming members on both sides are minded

so to do.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could begin,

first with Bill 58 which is Order No. 10. Should we get through that we will go

to Bill 59 which is Order No. 11 and should we get through that we will do the

massive piece of legislation which is Bill 50, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And

Errors In The Statute Law", which is really one that will keep people up late at

night.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: It may. In that case perhaps I should move

the House - Mr. Speaker, I won't make the motion for the moment in any event.

Would you be good enough to call Order No. 10, please, Sir.

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

Automobile Insurance Act". (Bill No. 58)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the law in this Province, and I think the law

generally throughout Canada, requires anybody who owns a motor vehicle to insure

that vehicle against what we call third party claims or public liability and

property damage, PLPD coverage. That insures that any person who is injured in

the legal sense by the activities of that motor vehicle - it does not matter

whether it is being driven by its owner or not - any person who is injured in a

legal sense by that motor vehicle will have a fund against which he/she or it

can look to an insurance company to look to a fund to compensate them for the

damages that the law awards to them. The minimum amount, as we know, is

$200,000.

Now that is the law but not everybody follows that law, Mr.

Speaker. There are those who -despite the fact that they are aware of the law or

perhaps because they don't care about the law - drive motor vehicles without

carrying any PLPD coverage, any third party coverage. So then if those vehicles

- remember the insurance attaches to a vehicle - the driver of the vehicle is

covered by the insurance except in one or two very special situations, basically

a stolen vehicle or without permission of the driver which amounts to a theft

but is not quite a theft at law - in those cases the person injured does not

have anywhere where he/she or it can look for recourse except to the individual.

The trouble is, the kind of individual who drives a vehicle without insurance

likely is judgement proof, there is no means to collect the judgement. You

cannot get blood from a turnip is an old phrase but it is also a good legal

maxim.

The system that was put in place in this Province many years

ago to deal with this was Judgement Recovery Limited. This bill seeks to abolish

judgement recovery and to replace it with a new venture. Before I go into that

let me just remind the House there are three situations where a person may have

to look to judgement recovery now. The first is where a person is injured in the

legal sense. Now usually that is injured in the physical sense as well but where

a person is entitled to collect damages from somebody who has broken the law by

not having any insurance, in the sense that the owner of that vehicle has not

insured the vehicle with an insurance company. That is one, that is by far the

most common but there are two others. There is the case where a person is

injured in the legal sense by somebody driving a stolen car or truck. In which

case of course the insurer is not responsible for coverage. If somebody steals

my car this afternoon or runs down my friend from Grand Bank, my friend from

Grand Bank cannot look to my insurance company, he has to look elsewhere. In

this case he would look to Judgement Recovery Limited.

The gentlemen in the backbenches on the other side, Mr.

Speaker, are sort of tantalized by the thought that somebody may run down the

gentleman from Grand Bank. I am reminded of the exchange between Gladstone and

Disraeli - a little before I came into the House - in the latter part of the

language with - he was a Liberal, of course. Disraeli was the Tory, and Disraeli

and Gladstone were great foes, great rivals. Somebody came in to Gladstone and

asked: `What is the difference, Prime Minister, between a catastrophe and a

disaster?' `Well,' said Gladstone, `if I were to hear that Disraeli had fallen

into the sea, that would be a disaster, but if I were to hear somebody pulled

him out, that would be a catastrophe.' I leave that to my friend for Grand Bank

to raise with his caucus.

The third situation, Mr. Speaker, is where a person is

injured by a hit-and-run driver. The driver may or may not have insurance but

the fact that one is not able to identify him or her means there is no way to

have recourse to an insurance company, so there are those three situations in

the legal context where a person may not be able to collect one's damages.

In the past, as I have said, we have used Judgement Recovery

Limited which is a body corporate - incorporated by statute, if memory serves

me, but perhaps incorporated under the Corporations Act - but anyway, a body

corporate under Newfoundland law. And it is essentially an insurance company

that is funded by the other insurance companies. It is run as an insurance

company, more or less as an insurance company - it is run on the insurance

principles. The board of directors, if memory serves me correctly, are nominated

by the individual insurance companies doing business in the Province, and at the

end of the year, the insurers pony up in proportion to their business in the

Province what it cost to run judgement recovery, so if one does 20 per cent of

the business in the Province, one pays 20 per cent of the cost of judgement

recovery. That is very straightforward and so forth. It means, of course, that

every one of us bears the cost of judgement recovery because the insurance

company doesn't take this out of its profits, it simply builds it; it is a cost

of doing business, and it is built into the rates we all go to pay by our

insurance.

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that judgement

recovery, while it has served fairly well for the thirty or forty years it has

been in existence, has not served as well as it could. When it came about

originally, thirty or forty years ago, there was no other mechanism that one

could envisage; there now is another one. Judgement recovery is cumbersome. By

definition, by its very name, one must first get a judgement against the person

who injured you. You must sue, and if you can't identify the person, there is a

whole complicated procedure in the act and you then go through and get a

judgement. Judgement recovery pays that judgement and then because it is

subrogated, to use a legal term, to your rights to collect it, if it can find

the individual it goes against the individual and tries to collect. I, from time

to time, hear from members whose constituents have been caught in this trap. I

heard from a gentleman opposite recently whose constituent, ten or twelve years

ago, was ordered to pay $10,000 under an insurance claim. The insurance company

paid out $10,000. This chap was fifteen years old when he took his father's car,

ran into another car and caused damage. The insurance company that insured the

car that was hit, paid, came back against the other chap, the fifteen-year-old,

and here he is, ten or twelve years later, still trying to struggle with the

judgement and can't get his license, because, of course, if you owe a judgement,

the insurance company is able to ask the registrar to lift your license, and

they do, on occasion.

Secondly, not only is judgement recovery a fairly cumbersome

process, it turns out, Mr. Speaker, when I began to look at it, to be a fairly

expensive process. During 1991, Judgement Recovery paid out in this Province -

and these are public figures, they come from the annual report of the company -

$450,000, roughly, in claims. It was $449 and change, if memory serves me. They

paid out $200,000 in what are called adjusting expenses. They paid out $450,000

and it cost them $200,000 in administration. Now, that included lawyer's fees

and adjuster's fees. In 1992 the picture got a little better. They paid out

$597,000, Judgement Recovery in claims, and it cost them an additional $208,000

to administer that. Now, Mr. Speaker, that, in our judgement, is too much and it

is not necessary if we can find a better way to do it - and we can.

The new bill, which adopts a procedure that is becoming more

or less standard throughout the country, puts in a new system: Instead of

looking to Judgement Recovery when you are hurt by somebody who is not insured,

you look to your own insurance company. And your own insurance company, in

calculating the rates that they charge to their customers, simply builds in an

amount that, in its judgement, will cover the cost of the claims it is likely to

pay.

That is not dissimilar to what is called the underinsured

motorist coverage, the SEF 44, whereby for an extra $10 or $20 or $30 ,

whatever, I can buy a coverage that will give me up to the limit of my policy -

say $1 million or $2 million - the amount that I am entitled to get over and

above the $200,000 that is the minimum the other driver must have. There are

lots of drivers out there who are only carrying $200,000. That is what they are

required to carry, but I can tell you that is not very much if one gets into a

serious claims situation; the judgement can easily exceed that. So you can buy -

it is called an SEF 44, a Standard Endorsement Form, I think it is. That is just

an industry term. SEF 44. My friend for Bonavista South has some knowledge, I

gather, of the insurance industry, he is nodding. The SEF 44 coverage means that

my policy is at risk for everything above the minimum amount.

This new act, this bill, if we amend the act, will simply

mean that my insurance company is at risk for any damage done to me by somebody

who is not insured. If the other person is insured then, of course, his or her

or its insurance company stands to get the risk.

Mr. Speaker, that still leaves the position of those who do

not have insurance. A child, somebody not licensed to drive, or somebody who,

for whatever reason, doesn't own a car. Those people do not have automobile

insurance. They are protected under this new system by what is called the

Facility Association. In fact, most of this bill - I think it is pages 7 through

23 - is given over to the operations of the Facility Association. If an

insurance company or an insurance operation is run by the insurance industry it

traditionally has taken only the bad risks. If you've had a whole bunch of

claims and nobody will insure you and yet you must have insurance to be able to

drive, you are put into the Facility Association. The premiums can be very high,

but the industry acknowledges that it has a responsibility to provide insurance

to everybody who is lawfully entitled to drive, so they do that with respect to

the bad risks though the Facility Association.

The Facility will also then take up the case which we

estimate to be less than 1 per cent of the situations where the person who is

injured and entitled to claim damages at law does not, himself or herself, have

an insurance policy in force, a motor vehicle insurance policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, one can be denied

insurance by one's own insurer, but then it goes to Facility. My understanding

is, Facility will take any risk as long as one is lawfully able to drive.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, I say to my friend for Grand Bank, this

bill has nothing to do with the denial of risk, that is a separate problem. If

you have a license to drive you get insurance. You may pay an awful lot for it.

If you have had twenty-seven claims in the last four years and you have been at

fault in all of them, your insurance premium is going to be close to 100 per

cent of the coverage.

The industry has responded. Given the obligation of people to

insure, they have responded by making it possible for an individual to insure,

but they won't give you a cut rate, nor should they. I mean, if you have that

kind of record you should bear a fair rate. People who get hit badly on that are

taxi drivers because they are, as a group, not a terribly good risk, although

there are many taxi drivers who are just as good as any of us, or perhaps

better.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that is the situation very briefly. I

don't need to say much more about the bill. The cost impact will not be

significant, I am told. I have a note here, if I can just turn it up, which says

that in 1990, 1991, and 1992 the cost through the judgement recovery system has

been of the order, on a proper insurance basis, of approximately $6 per driver.

In 1992, my officials tell me, the estimate of what is paid and what has to be

reserved, Judgement Recovery operates on a claims made basis but in a proper

insurance accounting it would have the IBNR, the incurred but not reported, it

would make a reserve for those. Judgement recovery for 1992 is about $1.8

million or about 305,000 vehicles licences in the Province in 1992, so in round

numbers that is about six dollars each. The insurance industry's estimate is

somewhere around seven dollars for this coverage, that is not materially

different and I am also, of course, able to tell the House that the Public

Utilities Board regulates insurance premiums in this Province, so if there is

any concern that one's premium is unfairly high because of this, there is a

remedy through the P.U. Board. But given that automobile insurance is a very

competitive field, I don't think we need worry about any one insurer taking

unfair advantage of this. If they do, they will a price in the market-place.

Mr. Speaker, the cost will not be significantly different in

our view, and based upon what I am told, and those who look to the system will

get much better service, much quicker results, because you will simply go to

your own insurance company, which one assumes will settle fairly and promptly;

that is a slogan some use. But they don't have to get into the question of

liability. All they look at is, if you are injured, they pay, and then they

settle out the liability issues later.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have had full consultation, or my

officials have, with the insurance industry through the Insurance Bureau of

Canada. And the Insurance Bureau of Canada, I think it is fair to say,

representing the insurers, supports this bill, but, and it is an important but,

there are two issues of which we take issue with them. The Insurance Bureau of

Canada has suggested that the government ought not to be able to claim under

this system. We see no reason why not. The government has property like anybody

else; the government has the right to collect damages in certain situations and

we believe we should be able to claim for those damages and that is in this

bill.

Secondly, the insurance bureau believes or suggests, and I

accept they believe, that the government ought not to be able to recover the

social costs; the hospital insurance bill, the medical care bill, the Workers'

Compensation and what have you, even though, the law now obliges a lawyer who

sues on behalf of a plaintiff, to include in the claim, the amount that has been

paid out through hospital insurance or Medicare or what have you. We do not

accept the insurance industry's submissions on that point. The bill, as drafted,

the bill is before the House, Sir, would allow the government to reclaim those

amounts as well. The issue can be simply put, should these be borne by drivers

or should they be borne by all of the taxpayers in the Province; in our view,

they should be borne by drivers, since they arise directly out of driving

activity.

Mr. Speaker, the only other comment I will make is this: We

have decided that we will ask the House to accept the bill at second reading; if

accepted, we propose then to refer it to the appropriate Legislation Committee

under Standing Order, I think it is 54.2, from memory, but the one we use, for

example, with respect of the smoking bills that my friend for St. John's Centre,

the Minister of Health, brought into the House last spring. So these, if

accepted by the House, would go to second reading and then would be referred out

to the committees so that will allow the industry to make their point again on

these two issues, and will allow anybody else who wish to be heard to come

forward and be heard, but the House would have approved the principle of the

bill and then we would come back in due course with or without amendment for

Committee stage in the third reading and be dealt with here.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the

bill.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be very brief in participating in this second reading

debate of this bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act," first,

because I have a cold and my voice is not at full strength. I see the Member for

Harbour Grace smiling; second, because the minister has just indicated an

intention to refer the bill to the Social Services Committee, following the same

procedure that the government took with the anti-smoking bills. As a member of

the Social Services Committee, I can say that the handling of the anti-smoking

Bills 1 and 7, was quite satisfactory from the point of view of the Opposition.

The third reason, on which I am not going to say very much at this point, is

that I really don't know very much about this subject. I listened with interest

to the minister's explanation.

When I was Minister of Justice, the Consumer Affairs Division

was part of a different department.

MR. ROBERTS: It still is.

MS. VERGE: I thought Consumer Affairs was now part of the

Department of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Yes, but what I said earlier is that when I

was Minister of Justice, from 1985-1989, Consumer Affairs was not part of the

Department of Justice.

At any rate, through good or bad luck, I have not had any

involvement with judgement recovery, and quite honestly was not aware of the

problems that the minister indicated, but I am quite willing to take his word

for the fact that the judgement recovery process has been cumbersome and has

cost more than it needed to.

The alternative that the minister is proposing in the bill,

listening to his explanation, seems to me to be quite reasonable, and I look

forward to participating with the other members of the Social Services Committee

in examining the bill in detail and holding public hearings on it.

I notice that the concluding clause of the bill provides for

coming into force on July 1 of next year, so that should give the committee

plenty of time to examine it and report back to the House during the early

spring sitting so that it is passed and receives Royal Assent in advance of July

I would like to thank the minister for his initiative in

putting forward this reform measure.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to make a few

remarks at second reading on this bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile

Insurance Act".

I have, in my law practice, had some experience with

judgement recovery and I am aware of some of the problems that have been

encountered. I say it is one of those areas which, as the previous speaker said,

it is probably your good fortune that you have had very little to do with

judgement recovery because, for lawyers, it has been a bit of a pitfall, and all

sorts of specialized rules that apply only to claims arising thereunder. I want

to just tell hon. members that it is very important to have in place and, in

fact, some of the problems with judgement recovery needed attention. I see one

of them that seems to have been dealt with in this act, and I will just give you

an example of the kind of things that have happened.

The minister, in introducing the bill, spoke of three

situations which exist, where someone has no insurance at all, or it is a stolen

vehicle, or a third one where it is a hit and run. There is a fourth situation

which I have encountered. My law practice has existed only twelve or thirteen

years, since 1980, and I have encountered, on two occasions, circumstances where

the insurance companies, in fact, have gone bankrupt. So you are dealing with a

question of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: One of them was quite astounding in terms of

the comedy of errors, if you will, or the compilation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which ones?

MR. HARRIS: Well, Beothic recently.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not bankrupt.

MR. HARRIS: Receivership, liquidation. In receivership -

not bankrupt - but unable to sufficiently -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I received a letter today, saying that they

did not think there would be sufficient money to pay all claims. Now whether

that bears -

MR. ROBERTS: I would put it in receivership, of course,

under the act.

MR. HARRIS: There is another insurance company,

Northumberland General Insurance Company, an Ontario company, but not

incorporated in this Province.

I had circumstances where my client did not have a huge

claim, but in the circumstances the company which owned the vehicle, and had it

insured, went bankrupt. The insurance company was also placed in receivership

and liquidation, having insufficient funds to pay its debts, and the driver of

the vehicle died. So there was really no one to claim against.

If you approach the Judgement Recovery Limited, under the

Judgement Recovery Act, they say: Well, I am sorry; this does not apply here

because the person who you sued was, in fact, insured by a policy and therefore

the judgement recovery does not apply. There inevitably resulted all sorts of

legal wranglings back and forth, and the matter is still ongoing. In fact, there

may indeed be full recovery from what is left over in the insurance company

itself, but it just goes to show you that despite the fact that these things are

quite complex, and try to cover every kind of circumstance, we are dealing with

very technical legislation. We are dealing with very technical issues that arise

in insurance matters and claims, and I welcome the approach being taken by the

minister in seeing that there will be ample time for those who have an interest

in these matters to study the legislation and to see how it might operate in

their particular cases. Obviously the insurance industry has a great deal of

interest in it and presumably have seen some drafts, or previous drafts, of the

legislation.

I think this document should be widely circulated,

particularly amongst the local insurance and legal profession, because it is

both of those groups which have to deal with the problems that arise from time

to time. The general public is interested in issues such as premiums and costs.

I note the belief at least at this stage in the projection that the cost of this

system will not be appreciatively greater. I gather from an initial, brief

review of the legislation that the protection that it will afford is

significantly greater, and therefore in principle it seems that this is a good

step to take.

The minister said the existing system is cumbersome. It is.

It also takes a lot of effort to work your way through it and to get a response

on the other end from the judgement recovery principals. It will only be from a

review, I think, by people who have a great interest in the workings of this

type of thing, or people who have had experience in the past with the other

legislation, that the bugs can be worked out prior to the legislation being

passed. It is not the kind of legislation - I note anyone who looking at the

Judgement Recovery Limited Act over the years will see that it seems to have

been amended every couple of years to fix up this

section or fix up that

section

or fix up the other section. Sometimes a result of a change in policy, sometimes

the result of finding a problem that wasn't thought of when the legislation was

put together.

I think this is the kind of legislation that really ought not

to operate by trial and error if at all possible, because the trial and error,

the error part of it usually means that some individual who has suffered a loss

in an accident ends up not being able to succeed in a claim because of some

inadequacy of the law or the act. I think that is a high price for an individual

to pay at a later date for something that could be cured with the proper

scrutiny at the time the legislation goes through.

I welcome the approach taken by the Minister of Justice. I

only wish the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations was taking the same

approach with this disastrous labour bill that he now has before the

Legislature. I don't think he knows the full implications of it. I hope he

doesn't. Because if he does he would be doing a dastardly deed. I hope over the

next few days that we can educate him enough to realize that what he is doing is

a negative thing. Before he takes the step of trying to get a third reading in

this House that he similarly will send that off to a committee and allow that

committee to travel across the Province to hear the full implications of how it

would operate.

As a member of the Social Legislation Review Committee, Mr.

Speaker, I look forward to an opportunity of hearing from the industry and

others who may be interested in this act. Hopefully there will be sufficient

time for, and sufficient scrutiny by, members of the insurance business and the

legal profession to make sure that this bill will operate properly once it is

put into force.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my speech in this

debate and say that I support second reading at this time.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): The hon. the Member for Humber

Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Just a few short comments, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to say to the minister, anything that the insurance

companies agree with I'm a bit sceptical of. No question.

My exposure to the judgement recovery act - I've been in

provincial politics now for almost nine years, and it is only the last couple of

months, really, that I've had any constituents come to me pertaining to this

particular act. One has been over eight months now waiting for judgement, and

another one, when I enquired the other day, I was told by a lawyer representing

those people that it could go over a year, and maybe eighteen months. Nothing

less than that.

If this bill rectifies that particular part of the problem

for a constituent of mine, or anybody in this Province, then I'm in favour of

it. The only thing that I'm afraid of at the end of the day is that insurance

companies today, as far as I'm concerned - I know there are a number of them

around the Province - but they pretty well set their own rates whenever they

feel like it.

It was only just the other day that they raised rates again,

the insurance companies in the Province. You got to have them - I threaten time

and time again to bring in a private members resolution pertaining to some

changes to insurance companies in this Province. If you go for a mortgage, you

have to have it, if you go for a car, you have to have it. You can't get a loan,

you can't get nothing without it. They have you right where they want you. A lot

of people today, especially young people, especially young men - women, not so

bad today when they go to get their license and insurance, they are not so bad.

They are hit hard but not as hard as young men. They are discriminated against

as far as I am concerned until they reach twenty-five. There is a history, I

suppose, of accidents and that is why there is such - well, I call it

discrimination but I suppose it is based on facts.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, cuts down on the cost so that they can

pay it. Yes, that is right but something is going to have to be done because we

have a lot of young people around the Province today who can't get their

license.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Why?

MR. WOODFORD: Because of the cost. Young men in the

Province today are being discriminated against - they can't get their license. A

young girl of the same age, without given a chance to prove themselves, can go

out and get their license and get insurance. If you have a daughter today you

can get her insured fairly cheaply but if you have a son today that you want to

put on your car - drivers license and you want him insured, you are in trouble.

This day and age, more especially in those times, they just cannot afford it and

that means they just don't drive. I am sure that the young people who act as our

Pages today - the young lady may not, she may find it a lot easier to get her

license than the other two gentlemen. Well I can assure you once they go to the

insurance company in order to get their license, Mr. Man, they are going to pay

and pay heavy or else they just don't drive.

Pertaining to the coverage, as far as I am concerned the

liability in this Province anyway, I don't think there should be anything less

than a $500,000 liability on any insurance claim. I say to the minister that if

there is anything to be changed, that is one that can be made. The minimums are

too low, the $200,000 figure is too low. It should be at least a minimum of

$500,000 because people are deceived by that figure. They go in - and insurance

companies don't tell you everything - they go in, sit down and everything is

hunky-dory, you want insurance on a car, you want collision - okay, they mention

a couple of things but they don't mention anything about medical expenses after.

The first year you go in to insure a vehicle in this Province they are pretty

good because they will put it on it. I just forget the one that the minister

mentioned earlier. That is one that comes to mind because the first year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: That should be mandatory also.

MR. WOODFORD: That should be mandatory. That particular

clause should be mandatory - unless you ask for it they won't give it to you.

They won't tell you about it. All of a sudden you are into a situation whereby

there are medical expenses and everything else required when you have an

accident and you don't know what the judgement is going to be - but $200,000, as

far as I am concerned, is too low. We should have at least a $500,000 liability

on every policy in the Province - every policy pertaining to a motor vehicle in

the Province because as far as I am concerned it is not enough coverage.

Now the minister mentioned about the lawyers fees; no doubt

in the two cases that I looked at, under the judgement recovery, the lawyers are

having a field day. The individual automatically thinks that he/she has to go to

a lawyer and then they in turn go to the lawyer who is representing the

Judgement Recovery Act or whatever it is called or Newfoundland Limited and by

the end of the day, when I looked at one particular case, I can see why the

minister said there were $200,000 and some odd spent on lawyers fees last year.

I can see where he is coming from because it is only in there for five or six

months and in one particular case alone, on every phone call, every fax, every

little thing a claim is put in. I can understand where he is coming from with

regards to expenses pertaining to - almost 50 per cent of all the monies

allocated and paid out for the last two years under judgement recovery is in

lawyers fees, almost 50 per cent. The amount of monies that comes back to the

individuals - the figure is not mentioned here. The totals are given but the

total amount of individuals are not given that access that $300,000. I would

submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the number of people who claim under the total

of $300,000 - that is left after lawyers fees - the amount of money that they

got is very, very minimal.

I say to the minister, it is a good act, as far as I am

concerned, based on the information I had this last couple of months. That is

all I am aware of, and it is about time something was done. If you have to go to

the insurance companies now you can rest assured that whatever expenses they pay

out under this particular act, they will have back within a year or so, so I say

to the minister that changing that judgement recovery act whereby people have to

now wait eighteen or twenty months is a good thing and it will help the people

who have to claim under this particular section.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I just want to comment very briefly on

Bill 58, "An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act". I fully support the

suggestion by my friend for Humber Valley that $200,000 being the minimum amount

of insurance right here in this Province is much, much too low. I think it is

human nature sometimes when we go out to purchase something, especially taking

into consideration the nature of what we are buying - sometimes we go out and

whatever it costs to allow us the privilege of driving that vehicle, then that

is what we purchase. If you look at the cost of purchasing $200,000 worth of

public liability versus $1 million you will find that it is very, very minimum,

indeed. In fact, it is less than $20 from a cost of $200,000 versus $1 million

in PLPD. The one thing that bothers me about auto insurance, it is compulsory

here in this Province to have auto insurance, but you can go out today to any

insurance company, purchase an insurance plan, and allow it to lapse within

thirty days, or within sixty days, and nobody bothers you. Nobody bothers you

until you go to insure your driver's license again or renew your license on your

vehicle when they ask for a policy number. The RCMP or somebody else will show

up at your door, Mr. Speaker, looking for a parking ticket summons that was

issued when you went to visit a relative at the hospital or if you parked down

on George Street somewhere illegally, but nobody will come looking for proof of

insurance until the time comes when you go to renew your auto license for you

car.

Mr. Speaker, I call on the minister to pursue that aspect of

the bill, as well, and perhaps have it say that if somebody having insurance

allows it to lapse, then Motor Vehicle Registration will be notified and that

person, in turn, will be confronted by whatever law enforcement that would look

after the issuing of tickets to make sure that the insurance is renewed and

carried again.

Thank you.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if nobody else wishes to speak

in the debate I will conclude it with a few brief remarks to respond to concerns

raised by members who have spoken. I thank them for their support and for their

contributions.

I say to my friend for St. John's East that the receivership

situation is a little different but it should no longer be of concern if this

amendment is adopted because then one would look to one's own insurer, unless

one's own insurer goes out of business, which is a different quintal of fish

altogether. But we have never had an instance here where a company subject to

our regulation as opposed to federal regulation, has not paid its claims in

full. Now, I am not aware of this letter about Beothuck of which he speaks,

because other than approving a recommendation by the superintendent that we put

it into receivership, which we did or which I did as the minister, I have had no

involvement of any sort with what has gone on since then. The Northumberland

General one is a separate issue and again it is a federally incorporated

company.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: It could be, but my understanding is the

insurance industry will make good the losses. That is only an understanding and

I don't put it forward as knowledge.

My friend for Humber East spoke of the July start date, and

she is right so to do. The intention is that any claims that arise after June

30, 1994 will be dealt with under the new legislation, if the legislation is

adopted, and claims before that will be dealt with under the judgement recovery.

It will take a number of years to run off judgement recovery but that is only a

matter of time.

I acknowledge the points made by my friend for Humber Valley

and my friend for Bonavista South about the need to revisit the issue of the

$200,000. I feel, myself, that $1 million is the minimum anyone should carry. I

have had, over the years, some involvement as a lawyer, with insurance; I did a

lot of work for insurance companies when I was at the Bar, some for private

individuals but mostly for insurance companies, and I can say that, in my

judgement, anybody who has only $200,000-worth of insurance is just asking for

trouble and the extra cost of going up to a million or $2 million is really

infinitesimal, particularly, if you have a few dollars.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My friend for Bonavista South apparently has

a few dollars. Well, I not only console with him but tell him, don't ever come

into the Cabinet because you will be in endless trouble if you are in that

position.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I don't know what the costs are.

MR. FITZGERALD: The cost of $200,000 versus $1 million.

MR. ROBERTS: I don't know what the costs are, but I know

the cost of the additional coverage is really very small, because what the

insurance companies rate, is the risk of an injury, not simply the pay-out, so

anybody who is not carrying it, in my opinion, is badly advised. I will ask my

officials to have another look at this, too; there are a couple of other things

we are going to have a look at in the Insurance Act, as well, but I want to have

another look at this minimum coverage one. Ours is as high as there is

throughout Canada.

MR. FITZGERALD: It was set one time, too, (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. The

section 2 coverage.

MR. FITZGERALD: It was accident insurance and health

benefits where you got - at one time, it was thirty-five dollars weekly benefit

(inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: That has been raised now, that is the

Section B coverage, so-called.

MR. FITZGERALD: But it is not compulsory anymore.

MR. ROBERTS: No, and we have had a look at that and are

still looking at it, there are issues either way, but the problem is, I say to

my friend for Bonavista South, that, if we make the higher levels compulsory, it

does have an impact on the amounts that people must pay, but I can tell him it

is a matter that I have not come to a judgement on, much less Cabinet, so I

could only tell him that it is a matter we are looking at, and we will have a

look, as well, at the minimum coverage. Certainly, there is a lot to be said, in

my view, for increasing it but there are arguments on the other side to be

looked at. We are as high now as anybody in Canada, the $200,000. In fact, there

are American states that have no minimum coverage, so if one is going to the

States, one would be well-advised to make sure you are covered.

MR. FITZGERALD: There are few insurance companies here in

Newfoundland that will allow insurance to be sold for $200,000; the most of

these companies now, the minimum is $500,000.

MR. ROBERTS: I am not as close to the market as I was a

couple of years ago when I was downtown working as a lawyer down there, but my

understanding was, some companies would not sell less than $500,000 but there

are companies who will sell a $200,000 policy and there is a demand for them.

The other point raised, Mr. Speaker is a troublesome one and

we have no - `we' being either the government or my officials - have no easy

answer. What do you do with somebody who gets an insurance policy, gets the pink

slip and the number, and then cancels it? Now, he or she is breaking the law and

they know full well what they are doing.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Could you monitor it?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, my friend for Grand Bank asks if we

could monitor it. I keep asking my officials and I get back, that

administratively, it is very difficult, because the insurance companies will

then have to send in a notice and there could be a thousand reasons for sending

in a notice. You sold your car, you have moved your address, you have changed

insurance companies, it would be a big administrative job but, I mean, it could

be done.

MR. FITZGERALD: But they do all that for driver's

extracts. If you purchase auto insurance from me today, the first thing the

insurance company will do is send on to Motor Vehicle Registration and get a

driver's extract, right?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, they get a driver's extract, but that

doesn't show whether the insurance has been cancelled or not because the

insurance companies are not obliged to let Motor Vehicle Registration know.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I hear what my friend for Grand Bank says

and I have a lot of sympathy with him. All I can say to him is when I have asked

my officials, what I am told is that administratively, it is difficult, but I

will ask them to look at it again. It is not a large problem in the sense that

one doesn't get a lot of people who show up with claims. Now, I mean, I look at

it because somebody injured by a person who has no insurance would then go to

Judgement Recovery, and the number of claims through Judgement Recovery doesn't

seem to have changed greatly. What is happening, of course, is the cost per

claim is escalating very rapidly.

MR. FITZGERALD: Somebody having insurance today, and they

allow their insurance to lapse, they still go around with their liability card

which they can take and show if they get stopped, right?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: Now, the insurance company that he

purchased his insurance from certainly has access to Motor Vehicle Registration

and it is only a matter of letting Motor Vehicle Registration know and can't you

go through the process then, of notifying the RCMP or somebody to either have

the plates removed from the vehicle, or whatever done in order to take away his

right to drive?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. That seems straightforward until one

realizes that the chap may simply have changed insurance companies.

MR. FITZGERALD: But Motor Vehicle Registration would know

that, as well.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I am not sure that Motor Vehicle

Registration has all the capability - or all the capacity, I should say - on

their computers. The problem is not one of principal, or principle, for that

matter, it is really one of technical ability to handle, the capacity to handle,

quite a volume. We have over 300,000 drivers licensed in this Province today. It

is quite a large operation. All I can say now is I will undertake to have a look

at it. The hon. gentleman and I will be here for three or four years, if all

goes well, so we will have an opportunity to talk again at an appropriate time

and we will get back to it.

Mr. Speaker, with those remarks, I will move that the bill be

read a second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance

Act," read a second time, ordered referred to the Social Legislation Review

Committee, pursuant to Standing Order 54.2. (Bill No. 58)

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to

call Order 11, Bill No. 59, please?

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

Occupational Health And Safety Act". (Bill No. 59)

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might take a couple

of minutes, if I may, to introduce Bill 59, "An Act To Amend The Occupational

Health and Safety Act." As is spelled out in the explanatory note, there is an

issue that, in the opinion of government, needs to be addressed and clarified at

this point in time. I might, for purpose of explanation, just give the genesis

of it and the incident that brought it to our attention.

All workers in the Province under the Occupational Health and

Safety Act, under

section 45, have the right to refuse duty if it, in fact,

could be dangerous to the worker's health or safety, or to the health or safety

of another person.

The particular incident that arose some time ago that gave

rise to the need for this bill and this amendment was an incident where a member

of the Constabulary used this

section under the Occupational Health And Safety

Act to refuse an assignment because it was deemed to be that the work was

dangerous under the act, and that was upheld by the Labour Relations Board in

the Province.

Upon study and consideration, it was found that really that

was not the intent of the act in the first place, and it is not the intent of

the act in the Canadian code or in several other provinces and the two

territories. With respect to groups of workers in occupations where their work,

itself, is inherently dangerous, such as police officers, fire-fighters, warders

and other groups of people, who from time to time in performing their own duties

will be in situations that are inherently dangerous by their very nature, it was

never intended that they would be granted the right to refuse the performance of

their normal duties on the basis of this occupational health and safety

protection.

I understand, as well, Mr. Speaker, that there are certain

trades and workers in the construction area, steel workers in particular, who

operate at great heights and at considerable risk on a regular basis where there

is some danger that is normally inherent in their job, that they would not have

the right to refuse and they don't refuse, but if there are additional dangers

and hazards that become apparent, they are still protected under this particular

legislation in other jurisdictions which have similar wording to what we are

proposing with clause 2 of the bill.

What we are trying to correct at this point in time - and

because the matter has only been dealt with very recently by ourselves in

government, we haven't had a chance to have full consultation and discussion of

this item with the groups that may be affected, those I mentioned, the police,

fire-fighters, warders and others, as well as certain aspects of the

construction trades. What we think in terms of reviewing it from across the

country and having this matter before the Labour Relations Board decided, a

matter which, in our opinion, is clearly contrary to the original intent of the

Occupational Health And Safety Act and this protection, that we should have this

discussion and debate now, and pass the bill in principle at second reading.

And, as was just done with the previous piece of legislation, we could refer the

bill then to the appropriate committee of the Legislature to undertake public

dialogue and discussion with the affected groups to see whether or not there is

something in this amendment that we think clarifies the situation, to better

spell out the original intent of the act. But if we have, in fact, inadvertently

missed something, and if someone can argue that we are taking away the right of

someone to refuse to work when it is dangerous and when they should be allowed

to refuse, then certainly if that can be explained, we would look at further

amendment or change that should be brought forward.

I offer those comments by way of introduction, and would

certainly listen to representations made by other speakers in this debate, and

then at the end of the period in time, would suggest that we would probably all

be best served by referring the matter to the committee for further

deliberation. We would probably be returning to the issue some time after

Christmas, in the next sitting of the House, to decide exactly how this should

be resolved so that the protections are there, so that workers don't have to

imperil themselves. In the meantime, people whose jobs themselves, in

particular, relate to the protection of other people, wouldn't be given the

opportunity to refuse to do their jobs on the basis of this occupational health

and safety protection clause.

With those few comments, Mr. Speaker, I certainly look

forward to listening to the other participants in the debate and with the plan,

as outlined, that we would, in fact, put the whole issue forward to the

committee for further dialogue and discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have just a few

comments. The minister's opening comments on what this piece of legislation

would entail certainly are somewhat enlightening.

A worker's right to refuse unsafe work dates back many, many

years in this Province, and in Canada. It is not something that governments

automatically put in legislation or in law, but it is something that they worked

hard for, and influenced legislators to put in law so that they would be safe in

the workplace.

I concur with the minister that there are occupations that

are inherently dangerous unto themselves, such as the ones he cited, the police

force - constabulary, fire-fighters, wardens, etcetera, that may have exceptions

to this act. I would agree that there would be exceptions, in particular, to

those three mentioned, and that the bill he has presented and is before us today

to debate, Bill 59, wants to correct and put into law that there are occupations

that are, indeed, hazardous, and therefore, a worker's right to refuse work

would not be warranted in that case.

I want to say that the bill, itself, under subsection

(1.1)(a), which says: `where danger is inherent in the worker's work or is a

normal condition of the worker's employment' is something that we should be more

specific about.

An iron worker, for example, is his job or her job inherently

unsafe when working forty or fifty stories high? An undersea diver, is his or

her job, inherently unsafe? What we have to be careful with here, in my opinion,

is that we do not open a back door for employers in the Province here to say to

a worker who is working in an unsafe environment, `No, the legislation and law

of the land is clear in that you cannot refuse this work because your job is

inherently unsafe unto itself.' I think that is what we have to be careful of.

I applaud the minister in saying that he wants to accept

wider consultation on this matter in referring it to committee and dealing with

it in the next sitting of the House. I hope that the minister, in other

legislation he is bringing forth this week, will also refer to wider

consultation and to other matters of the House.

In wrapping up what I have to say, I thank the minister for

his comments. He has enlightened me in terms of where government's intent is on

this piece of legislation.

I would further point out to the minister that if, indeed,

the government's intent is to be specific in dealing with the cases that he has

bought to the attention of the House, and to the people of the Province, then

let us be specific in law and in legislation to the occupations and specific

cases that we are referring to so that we do not, in fact, open up the back door

to unsafe work environment where workers would be forced, coerced, intimidated,

to work in unsafe work environments where they do not have to.

With that, I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to speak

on this piece of legislation.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few words.

Because of twenty-five years of experience in dealing in this

particular field and seeing all kinds of circumstances that this particular part

of the legislation - I complement my colleagues opposite because it was under

that government that this piece of legislation came to be, `the right to

refuse'. However, I have seen, through practical experience, this particular

situation abused from time to time. I would concur with the minister that it is

for sure, a situation where you see a constabulary individual in a circumstance,

that the right to refuse is just not acceptable.

I would suggest to the Member for Kilbride that if you were

in a situation where you had a fire and there was somebody trapped or people

trapped, highly qualified skilled firemen with Scott-Air packs and the right

equipment can enter that kind of an environment and successfully evacuate those

who are down. Now the point that I would like to make - and sometimes it is

rather difficult- and I think of one, as Occupational Health and Safety Director

at FPI, when we had a chlorine spill or leak we had some people in this

particular plant trained, at that particular time, to wear a breathing

apparatus. A couple of those individuals, because of the concentration, where

the parts per million of chlorine - that we knew were there because we had

audible units to read it - was rather high to say the least. I was there and

qualified to enter confined spaces with a breathing apparatus but it was very

difficult to get some assistance. The real problem was that we did have an

individual who was down on the floor and we had to get that individual out. Now

somebody would say to me: well Tom, look we have one guy down, if we go in there

and we are not sure of ourselves, we don't feel confident, et cetera, et cetera.

That I understand but there is always a fine line and

sometimes the right to refuse is an instantaneous decision. It is a decision

that has to be made where there is a possibility of loss of life or serious

injury. I say to hon. members opposite, I don't think that this intent is here

whatsoever. I have never, ever, ever seen a legitimate excuse for the right to

refuse. I have seen the arbitration or the grievance procedure after, so forth

and so on and it always came to a successful conclusion. I have seen 1200 people

who were out for three days and the company paid them because yes, they did have

the right to refuse because of different reasons.

Now let me say to you that - and the member uses by example -

I have seen iron workers who classified on the tail-end of their job, they are

called connectors. This time of the year with a little drop of drizzle or a

little bit of rain or what have you, the steel on the ground could be clean and

a connector gets sixty feet in the air and the conditions change entirely. He is

standing on a two inch lug waiting for a crane to bring him in a beam and that

lug has ice on it. The iron worker can come down and say to his supervisor:

look, it is slippery up top, I can't go up there. Now I say to you in all

honesty, these are things that vary and I have never seen a supervisor force an

iron worker to go back on that column to go up and make steel if the situation

is such. So I would not want hon. members to get carried away with it as such.

There are many, many circumstances okay, that we would have to be there to see

that circumstance but when you say to a police officer: there is somebody in

that house and the possibility of a loss of life, then the officer has to make

up his/her mind whether to go in or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: We are not creating a situation, I think

these are extremes. If you have somebody, through no fault of their own - let me

give the member another example - in his own district we have the Psychiatric

Hospital and things take place in that hospital that would cause some workers to

feel that they were in danger of their own health and safety by entering a ward

because of an over zealous and/or excited patient who may or may not have some

kind of a pipe or a stick in his hand or whatever the case may be -so you can't

always be totally definitive. You can't always say no, it is not safe or yes, it

is safe. Nobody gets in the constabulary without training, nobody gets to become

a fire fighter without training, nobody gets to become a warder without

training. All of these professions understand that there is an inherent danger

associated with their jobs. They understand that. If you are an iron worker, you

understand.

But the situations vary. If somebody, I say, in the hon.

Member for Menihek's District, where you have a palletizing plant and you have

dust situations and what have you. Over the years the member has seen, as I have

seen, given the climate - a foggy day, a day with no wind or what have you, not

recently, but years ago - and you could not see a hand in front of you. Workers,

because of an irritation, they just wouldn't go in. Rightfully so, because the

levels were too high. The same thing applies with certain gases, as I said. In

the fishing industry we were always faced with the chlorine problem. It was a

constant problem.

That is what the act is designed for, to ensure that no

worker is forced into an environment. But when you get out into a specific, as

the minister said, when you get out into a specific, for those professions

and/or trades, that inherent danger is a part and/or a piece of that particular

profession or trade. This is all the minister is saying. Sometimes, because of

another situation - and I've seen this quite a bit, to be quite candid - that

people would use the right to refuse to not go into the workplace. It was

because of another labour relations problem, in a lot of instances. Not always,

but I've seen that done too.

I would say that what we have to be careful of here is that

we don't get carried away. This amendment to the bill is totally confined to

specific professions and/or a specific circumstance or situation. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to speak on

this bill to amend the occupational health and safety act because I have a grave

concern with what the government is doing here.

The Occupational Health And Safety Act

section that is being

sought to be amended deals with

section 45 of that act. The right to refuse work

is a very important feature of all occupational health and safety legislation.

The

section that is being sought to be amended provides that a worker may refuse

to do work that the worker has reasonable grounds to believe is dangerous to his

or her health or safety, or the health or safety of another person at the

workplace. Then there are a few `until certain things have happened.'

What this legislation seeks to do is to remove that

protection for a reasonable refusal to work in any situation where danger is

inherent in the worker's work. Not that particular danger but all danger is

inherent in the worker's work, or is a normal condition of the worker's

employment. I ask you, what work has the most accidental deaths in this

Province? Fishing. So no fisherman, no trawler man, nobody on any ship or boat,

will ever have after this legislation is passed - unless it is amended - the

right to refuse work. Because there can be no such thing as a reasonable refusal

to work if you are working in an industry where it is a normal condition of your

employment.

I say to hon. members, and you have to have - and I

understand the Member for St. John's South has a fair degree of experience in

occupational health and safety - but I say to the hon. member that I have

experience in how employers defend these cases. I have experience in how they

defend them. This is going to be the new defence for any occupational health and

safety claim where somebody has refused work. The new defence is going to be

inherent danger in the work. You are a miner. Inherently dangerous work. Down

underground, working with heavy equipment. Inherently dangerous. Out on the

road, as a transport truck driver, inherently dangerous work. I tell you that

that is what you are going to hear every time a case is brought to court.

I understand that the government has a disagreement with the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary about the conditions of their work. I understand

that. I also understand that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the fire

fighters, and the wardens, are subject to a form of - they are quasi-miliary,

paramilitary operations. They are subject to a form of military discipline. They

cannot be shot at dawn for falling asleep on the job or anything, but they are

subject to a form of discipline that is very different from normal workplace

conditions, and if the government feels that it wants to move its dispute with

the police force, or the RNC, into the legislative field, then let them change

the act. Let them change the police act. Let them change the act regulating the

St. John's fire fighters, and let them say that a police officer shall follow

orders, regardless of the danger to the health of an officer. Let them say that.

Let them come right out and say it, and face it head on, and say what they mean.

They say: Well, we are not going to let you have guns, and we

are not going to let you refuse to work. If that is what you want to say, well

why do you not say that, instead of putting together a piece of legislation that

seems to have enormous implications for industry as a whole.

You know, a linesman working for Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro, or for Newfoundland Power - acting as a linesman is inherently dangerous

work, and I have been in court arguing over cases where a worker refused to

climb a tower when there were certain ice and sleet conditions, and it was work

that did not need to be done. It was not reinstalling power. It was not trying

to fix up a line to a hospital, or even to a community which had its power gone

out. It was work that could have been postponed. The question was whether or not

the individuals had reasonably refused to work, and the company fought that.

They did not like the arbitration. They went to court, and that is the kind of

situation with which we are dealing.

If that defence was available to them, you can be sure it

would be said: Well, being a linesman is inherently dangerous work. That is a

normal condition of that employment. Working as a lineman you are dealing with

sixty-seven kilovolts or more, or whatever, of electricity, and that is

inherently dangerous and therefore you cannot refuse to work.

I think the bill is misguided. It is aimed at the wrong

target. If the target is, as the minister said, the decision involving the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary, then fix it. If government believes that it wants to

overrule the Labour Relations Board by changing legislation, well let them do it

and let them have the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association come in and

lobby this group, or lobby the members, and have the debate about the real

issue, but if they are trying to change overall labour legislation, then let

them say that here.

I think what they are doing here is inherently dangerous to

work people. It is inherently dangerous to workers in this Province to have a

piece of legislation like that because it takes away the right to reasonably

refuse work.

The question might well be answered on the basis of the

legislation as it is. A worker may refuse to do work when that worker has

reasonable grounds to believe it is dangerous. Everything turns on the work

`reasonable' in that piece of legislation, and there may well be circumstances

where someone's life is in danger that fellow workers there, if you can do

something that can save that person's life, and you say: Well, I might hurt my

arm while I am doing it; therefore I am going to refuse. It may not be

reasonable to refuse to do something that might cause you slight injury but save

someone's life in a workplace situation. I think that an arbitrator or court

having to deal with that would say: Oh, no, you have to weigh up the danger with

the consequences.

So the situation that the Member for St. John's South was

talking about, if there was a fire, or there was smoke and fumes, if you had a

pretty good chance of getting in, you might sear your hair or something like

that, but if you could get somebody out and save their life, well it might not

be reasonable to refuse in those circumstances. It might not be reasonable to

refuse in the situation, so why take a blunderbuss and change all occupational

health and safety - go backwards in time. When a stiletto can do the job, if the

minister wants to do a job, why take a blunderbuss to do it?

The only redeeming feature of the minister's speech on this

issue is that he is willing to hear what the people in the workplaces of this

Province have to say about it. That is the only redeeming feature in what the

minister had to say. I think he is taking the wrong approach, or the government

is taking the wrong approach. I commend his decision to take the legislation to

a committee and I think if they hear from people who are active in the

occupational health and safety field, who know that field and who know what the

consequences are going to be on the ground, then I think that the

recommendations of that committee will probably be to do something quite

different than what the minister is planning.

While I am speaking on this topic I want to ask the minister

to take the same approach to Bill 49. You may have been thinking about it for a

couple of years, as the story has been now put out that the government was

thinking about it for a couple of years. That is the story they are now putting

around, but they did not let anybody else know about that for a couple of years

and we only found out about it a little while ago. We only saw the legislation a

couple of weeks ago. I am going to give the minister the benefit of the doubt, I

am saying he does not know what he is doing. I do not think he knows what he is

doing in Bill 49, unless his intention is to make union organizing difficult in

this Province. We listened to what the Premier had to say down in the USA there

last week and maybe that is the case. Maybe we want to have the worse labour

laws in all of North America. Maybe we want to be a right to work state, we want

to compete with West Virginia or some place like that with our labour laws. If

that is what the minister intends I say to him that is what he is doing, and I

ask him when he is putting this bill off to the committee that he also allow the

committee that is now considering the other bill to continue to hold hearings.

There are a number of organizations who want to make

presentations to the Legislative Review Committee on Bill 49 as well. Some have

already made representations and I do not think that the public knows the full

extent of how this bill is going to affect the ability to organize. I read a

book recently about labour law in the United States and one of the comments that

this author makes - this guy is a labour lawyer - he would not be a mainstream

labour lawyer, he sues as many unions as he represents so he is not exactly a

mainstream labour lawyer in the United States. I guess if I were in the United

States I probably would not be a mainstream labour lawyer either, but what he

does say is when you take the effect of the US labour laws requiring votes in

each and every circumstance where there is an application for certification, he

says, this author says: Oh, Canada, I wish we were like Canada where if you

provided proof of your membership you could get certified and try to make a

collective agreement. What happened in the States is that it took the employers

a few years to figure it out. They had to listen to the labour consultants and

the labour consultants finally told them: if you want to stop a union organizing

drive, as soon as you find out about it fire the ringleaders. That is the

consequence of what has happened in the States and now when that happens the

votes are lost.

I think if the minister is really serious about trying to

change the labour laws to make them unfavourable to the workers in this Province

both Bill 59 and Bill 49 will do it. If he wants to insist that the Government

House Leader bring that other bill through the House through third reading this

time he will confirm that what he is trying to do with both these pieces of

legislation is make things difficult for workers as part of some scheme that he

and the Premier have put together, but if he is really serious about listening

to what the people have to say and trying to find out the full implications of

legislation instead of taking a know it all attitude he will take both of these

bills, both Bill 49 and Bill 59, and let the people of this Province understand

the full implication of both these pieces of legislation so that public opinion

has an opportunity to be informed and to make the proper representations

lobbying to the government, to the backbenchers, and to the media.

As I say the only redeeming feature of what the minister had

to say is his willingness to have this matter be fully examined by the public,

fully examined by members of industry, by people who are active in the

occupational health and safety field. I am convinced that this legislation ought

not to be passed in its present form, that if there is a concern, then perhaps

if they really want to say that the police cannot be covered by this, why don't

they say this does not apply to members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary,

why don't they say that, if that is what they want to say, and face the issue

head on instead of trying some back-door approach which is going to tip the

balance against workers. The more dangerous the industry I say to the minister,

the more dangerous inherent in the workplace, the more need for

section 45 of

the Labour Relations Act.

If you have special circumstances where you want the boss,

whether it is the Chief of Police, where you want the boss, to be able to order

a worker to do dangerous work despite the fact that there is reasonable grounds

that it might be unsafe, then you should say so, say when that is and not just

give broad, sweeping categories. If you want to give the Chief of Police power

to order his officers to take action then say so and then we will judge that on

its merits and see whether or not the power being given to the Chief of Police

is reasonable and should be supported, but to take it in a bill about something

else, I think cannot be supported and I think the minister will come to realize

this when he has heard from industry and from the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to have a few words to say about Bill 59, "An Act

To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act."

I represent a district that is very heavily industrialized,

it is the most industrialized district in this Province, the heavy industry and

the mining industry in Labrador City and Wabush. It is probably the largest

industrial complex, I would suspect, east of Montreal.

Mr. Speaker, the unions in Western Labrador fought long and

hard to include in their collective agreements the right to refuse work when the

act was unsafe and they deemed it unsafe, and that was placed in collective

agreements, but this act would supersede any collective agreements; this would

become the law of the land. That is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, this would

become the law of the land and because somebody, as an example, a blaster, whose

job is dangerous and in certain cases other attendants, people working in the

operations in the mining industry have to do certain tasks that may be deemed

dangerous, or a certain amount of danger is attached to it because the danger is

inherent in the workers work or is a normal condition of the workers employment,

but, Mr. Speaker, in specific areas and at specific times that act of blasting

becomes extremely, extremely dangerous because of a bridging in a pocket or

pockets, and that makes it extremely dangerous when you are doing the blasting

to clear that bridging, and workers have found it necessary to refuse the work.

In this particular case they would say, the company could

say, well you have to do it even though it is a danger. Now, Mr. Speaker, if

this government, this particular minister has a particular problem with a

certain number of employees who work for the government, well they should solve

that particular problem; sit down with the employer and employee in the normal

fashion of working out the employee-employer problems; sit down and talk about

it and discuss it and solve that particular problem. Let us not create a mammoth

problem out of this small problem that has developed as the minister suggested,

this small problem has developed in the case of the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary I believe he suggested, in that they had a problem with asking a

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary member to do a specific task and they felt the

role that he was hired to do should have been performed and that he had accepted

the danger.

I would also caution the minister, Mr. Speaker, to put into

legislation that we, as lawmakers or we as a society, would expect the people in

law enforcement to have to put their lives in danger when it could be

necessarily protected if they had certain tools to do the job, Mr. Speaker. I

don't think anybody in today's society expects a policeman, or a fireman, as an

example, to fight a fire without the proper equipment to fight the fire. I don't

expect we would expect a fireman to put out a fire on the tenth floor of this

building by rushing up the fire escape with a two-gallon bucket of water, if the

fire is up there and it is dangerous without the proper breathing material and

the proper equipment to put out the fire.

I don't expect society would expect, or should expect, a

policeman to enter an armed confrontation betwe