December

22, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 89

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, it is with pride I rise today

in this House of Assembly, being an ex-fire fighter and an ex-police officer. I

ask this hon. House if they would join with me in offering congratulations to a

great group of men and women who prevented another disaster in St. John's last

night. Many of us have read about the disaster of 1847, 1892 and now 1992, and

only for the work and the alertness of those people - some of the firemen

received minor injuries but thank God, nothing serious. Also, Mr. Speaker, a

great lot of our history was lost last night but, Mr. Speaker, there were no

lives lost and again it was mainly because of the great work by those two

organizations, the St. John's Fire Department and the RNC.

Also, Mr. Speaker, you will have to give some thought to

recognizing the RCMP and the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. They are always

there at a time of need, and I would like you, Sir, on behalf of this hon. House

to send a letter of commendation and thanks to the St. John's Fire Department

and the RNC on a job well done. Mr. Speaker, I think I have seen at times when

there were announcements in this House, when all hon. members gave a good round

of applause, I would say today, Mr. Speaker, that I ask for the same round of

applause for those men and women who saved the City of St. John's last night

from destruction.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we on this side are happy to

associate ourselves with the thoughts and sentiments so eloquently expressed by

the gentleman for St. John's East Extern. I know he spoke for every member of

the House.

The Premier and I went over this morning to the area and the

Premier spoke to the men who were there. Some of the firemen who'd been there

all night, some police officers, members of the Salvation Army, the other

volunteer services who were there. Many of them of course had gone home.

The fire was still burning at 10:30 this morning and the

desolation would be - I don't know if any hon. members have had a chance to go

there - but the desolation is hard to believe. The former Social Services

building, which ironically was the site of the Knights of Columbus building that

burned fifty years ago almost to the day, was levelled. Nothing left except a

vault in which interesting - I understand a fair number of quite valuable papers

are being held. We're all hoping of course when the fire dies down that the

papers are preserved.

The CLB Armoury which is an historic monument, the scene of

great confederate rallies, among other memorable occasions, all that's left are

some chimneys and the front door, a great piece of concrete. The Parade Street

School, or the supermarket, as it became latterly, nothing left but the brick

shell. On the south side of Harvey Road, between the intersection, the point

where Long's Hill runs into Harvey Road, down as far as Gin's Restaurant, there

is nothing left except rubble. It is astonishing.

I think it is a tribute to the men of the St. John's Fire

Department and all who worked with them - the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary,

the Light and Power crews, who have to come in and disconnect cables, the

members of the volunteer services, senior officials of Social Services were

there all night, I understand.

PREMIER WELLS: The police.

MR. ROBERTS: Everybody. The police were there. In fact,

there was damage done to the police building. The Constabulary building had

several windows cracked because of the heat and the flames.

All who were there I know realise what I'm about to say, and

all in this Province have reason to be grateful to the men and the women who

were there all night. The emergency services did us all proud. The devastation

is complete, but the thought of what could have happened, had it not been for

the efforts of these people - because if that fire had gone across Long's Hill

and down into the older part of the city - Young Street and on into Lime Street

and Monroe Street and these areas - as I heard a fireman say on the radio this

morning, they would have been fighting it at City Hall. The whole of the area

below LeMarchant Road, over at least as far as Barter's Hill, conceivably could

have gone.

So I think we in the House, Sir, do owe a debt of gratitude.

I'm glad the hon. gentleman raised it, and I'm happy to associate the Premier

and those of us on this side with the thoughts. The Premier was there this

morning personally to thank the men, and through this means we join in, on

behalf of the whole Province, in thanking those men and women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the fire last night was an

economic tragedy for many businesses and of course those who lost their homes in

the fire and have to seek other accommodation. But what was averted was in fact

a major disaster in the downtown area.

Mr. Speaker, it is an area where I grew up and some members

of my own family still live on adjoining streets and I know many of the people

who were evacuated last night and who had a great deal of fear about what could

have happened to their own homes and to others. We are only lucky, Mr. Speaker,

that no one was killed or seriously injured as a result of the fire and it is,

as the Member for St. John's East quite rightly pointed out, an unfortunate

legacy of this city to have had the experience of two major fires in recorded

history that did extensive damage which is still talked about and we are still

seeing the effects of that, Mr. Speaker, in the nature of the housing that we

have.

But I think all hands, Mr. Speaker, did a very good job last

night. There were the volunteer services, the Salvation Army, the official

service if you will, the uniformed services of the city, the St. John's Fire

Department, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and I am told, Mr. Speaker, a

number of private individuals who assisted so well in directing traffic and

ensuring that there was not more congestion and more danger to the members of

the public seeking to have a view of what was going on. So, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to join in commending, in particular the uniformed services, the St. John's

Fire Department and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and also to ask the

House to offer their sympathy to those who lost their homes or businesses in the

fire and particularly the CLB which lost a great legacy, as the Minister of

Justice pointed out, a legacy of history for many of us but also for those who

were celebrating this year the hundred anniversary of the CLB, a lot of

momentos, archives and records. It is sad, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the records

stored in Social Services for example are able to be preserved and to maintain

some of the records that we have.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr.

Speaker. I think in the fourteen years that I have been in this House of

Assembly, this might be the second time, but I believe it to be the first time,

that I ever rose in this House of Assembly on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to take up too much of the time of the House. The Speaker can

listen to it and rule on it, or take it under advisement, as he sees fit. Mr.

Speaker, what happened in this House of Assembly last evening I believe to be an

infringement of my rights, as a member of the House of Assembly and the rights

of all members of the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I haven't had an

opportunity to get a copy of the Hansard with last night's events in it yet, so

I can't quote word for word exactly what happened.

Mr. Speaker, the point of privilege I would like to raise: It

is my understanding, since I came into this House of Assembly, that I would have

at least one opportunity to speak in each stage of any legislation that goes

through the House of Assembly. If closure comes in my time would be limited and,

in different stages, I would have different amounts of time, Mr. Speaker. All

those rules are set down in our Standing Orders. Whatever happened last night,

Mr. Speaker, whether it was too broad a ruling or too broad an

interpretation of

the closure rule or whether it was a different

interpretation of the Standing

Orders than has been the practice in this House of Assembly, I was denied, as a

member in this House, the right to speak on the third reading of a bill that

went through this House of Assembly. I had ample opportunity to speak on the

second reading, I had ample opportunity to speak in the Committee stage, but,

Mr. Speaker, I was denied the right that each member in this House of Assembly

has, to speak on the third reading of that bill that passed yesterday, the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary bill, I believe was the name of it. I don't have it in

front of me now.

Mr. Speaker, that is the point of privilege I would like to

raise. I would like Your Honour to consider that point of privilege and give us

a ruling as to whether we do or do not have the right to speak on each stage of

legislation as it goes through this House of Assembly.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in my submission, not only has

the hon. gentleman not raised a point of privilege but he, in fact, has breached

the privileges of the House by attempting to do what he is doing. The matter of

which he makes complaint, Mr. Speaker, was dealt with thoroughly last night here

in the House and led to a series of rulings from the Chair. So, in itself, there

can be no question of privilege. The Chair made the rulings.

Now, the hon. gentleman apparently will not accept that the

rulings: (

a) were made; and (

b) in my submission, reflecting the Chair's rulings

on the point, are entirely consistent with practice and precedent in this House.

The problem is, the hon. gentlemen opposite do not know as much as they think

they know. Next, Mr. Speaker, if an hon. member doesn't agree with a ruling of

the Chair there is a procedure whereby one may challenge it. That bring me to

the final point I wish to make, that all the hon. gentleman is doing is

attempting to challenge Your Honour's ruling of last night. If he wanted to

challenge it, there is a procedure provided to him, and that is open to a

member. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition nods acquiescence. He, too, is

familiar, as am I, with the procedure. It is there, it is available, it is

quick, it is efficacious, and it decides the issue.

All the hon. gentleman is doing is not raising a question of

privilege, he is simply challenging Your Honour's decision last night and that,

Sir, in my view, is a breach of the privileges of the House and it cannot be

done and should not be tolerated.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to support the motion of privilege brought by

the Member for Kilbride. The Government House Leader is suggesting that what he

is trying to do is challenge the ruling of the House. I would submit that what

he is doing is advising the Chair that in his view he cannot carry on as a

member when his privileges, as a member, have been violated by the wording and

the effect of what was added to the closure motion by the Government House

Leader.

I just want to put this on the record, Mr. Speaker, because

the closure motion, itself, which was passed in this House by the Government

House Leader, contains the following words: Or whatever else might be related to

Bill 56.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have carefully read Order 50, which is

the authority for the closure motion, and I see nowhere in that does it give the

power to the House - and I say it is the House because although the motion is

moved by the Government House Leader, the House passes the closure motion - but

I see no authority in Order 50 to give the House the power to add those words,

'or whatever else might be related to Bill 56,' because it is under those words

that the Government House Leader sought to have the ruling that allowed the

Chair to make the ruling that it made.

Despite the fact that there is no direct challenge to the

ruling of the Chair, what we have, in fact, is an hon. member saying that the

culminating effect of the motion made by the House, the Order 50 and the

interpretation placed on it by the Speaker, the culminating effect of all those

three things is that the privileges of the hon. member are breached and he, as a

member, being not allowed to speak at third reading of a bill, has his

privileges breached.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that is an overriding consideration

that goes above and beyond challenging the ruling of the Chair, or merely a

procedural objection, or loss of a procedural point. This is far beyond that and

it involves what I think, Mr. Speaker, seems to be unprecedented and that is

that the hon. member could not speak at third reading, neither could this hon.

member speak, but I support the point of privilege being raised by the Member

for Kilbride.

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

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

I want to support as well, the point of privilege raised by

the Member for Kilbride and supported by the Member for St. John's East. As Your

Honour knows and other members who were here last night, this turned into quite

a contentious issue and just before we adjourned I had the opportunity to say

that I thought we were on dangerous ground, that we were precedent setting here

in the things that we did last night and I still maintain that.

The Member for Kilbride is quite correct in what he said and

so is the Member for St. John's East, which makes one think out loud that that

particular wording that he referred to was put in there to get the Government

House Leader around, to get to the objective he wanted to reach last night, and

it was not only the privileges of the Member for Kilbride that I felt were

breached and affected, but I felt that mine were as well. The thing was that I

was not interested in speaking two or three or four times last night, but having

said that the opportunity should have been provided for me to do so if I so

desired, and I think that what happened last night, Mr. Speaker, as I said last

night, I think it was incorrect and I think the member's privileges were

breached and all hon. members' privileges were breached as well.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I will entertain one more by the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one additional submission, I

guess, to the debate on this point. First of all the Minister of Justice, the

Government House Leader, talks about whether this is a point of privilege and

whether Your Honour can rule it as a point of privilege. Your Honour cannot rule

it as a point of privilege, in any event, he must rule whether or not the matter

is of such importance as to allow the motion which the Member for Kilbride is

prepared to put; it is not a question of whether the Speaker can rule whether it

is a question of privilege.

But the one thing I want to draw to Your Honour's attention

before Your Honour makes a ruling on this point of privilege is: the very first

paragraph in Beauchesne's 6th Edition, paragraph one on page three, when it

describes the principles of Canadian parliamentary law which are as follows:

To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence or

tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an

orderly manner, orderly manner; to enable every member to express opinions

within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of

time; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and

to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that paragraph one, Beauchesne's

6th edition says it all, and we can see clearly what this government has been

trying to do and that the point that the Member for Kilbride makes, is a point

that all of us on this side of the House support very strongly. We have not had

the opportunity to review Hansard to see exactly what transpired but clearly a

ruling was made which goes against the precedents in this House, without

question, and I think that is the matter we would like to have reviewed by His

Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of privilege. The Chair has

been very lenient in allowing members to voice their opinion on this rather

important issue. As the Government House Leader said this was discussed at

length last evening and the decision was made. Sometimes we have decisions made

by Speakers which are sometimes good and sometimes they are bad, depending on

the circumstances and depending on the rules. I just want to read to hon.

members the point that I made last night, Page 97 of Beauchesne, Paragraph 321,

referring to a point of order. Last night I mentioned to hon. members that a

point of order must be raised immediately and in this case it was not and the

same thing with the point of privilege today. I will read Paragraph 321: "A

point of order against procedure must be raised promptly and before the question

is passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place." Quite

clearly this is the same thing we are dealing with here. I will say this to hon.

members, the Standing Order related to closure is not a clear Standing Order and

I ask hon. members to correct it. It need not be in this kind of situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is speaking and the Chair is not going to tolerate

any interference. The Chair is not suppose to debate with hon. members. The

Chair is giving its position on the point of privilege. The Standing Order is

very unclear. Let me read for hon. members - this is from the annotated notes of

the House of Commons - The rule has been the subject of much comment in the

House of Commons because of its vagueness but there as here it has never been

changed. To quote from the annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons,

Speakers have been consistently hampered by the vagueness of the wording and

have clearly stated that the subject is not without uncertainty and pitfalls.

The difficulties which we and others have experienced in interpreting the

closure provision suggests that a clarification of this and other rules which

have presented difficulties might well be considered by the House of Assembly

committee which reviews the rules and procedures of the House. In other

instances as well the motion has been a little bit more precise than the one of

yesterday and there is no question, in addressing the hon. Member for Kilbride,

the motion was a broad one and in the future the Chair and the Table will

address that matter in terms of motions for closure. For these and other reasons

I would suggest that the hon. member has not established a prima facie case. The

decision has been made and I am afraid we have to live with it.

MR. SIMMS: In keeping with the suggestion made by the

Government House Leader we have no other alternative -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are three people standing.

MR. SIMMS: We are challenging your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I am sorry.

Does the House sustain the ruling of the Chair?

All those in favour 'Aye.'

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against 'Nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

o o o

MR. SPEAKER: I revert back to wherever we were in this

procedure.

I call the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand on a point of privilege, as a member of this House.

The Chair had ruled that committee was not a reading. If a Committee of the

Whole is not a reading and someone forced you into Committee of the Whole then

how could I have deemed to be speaking on third reading if the Chair ruled it

was not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is going to entertain no point of privilege and no

points on the proceedings of last night. A decision has been made. It is not a

different point of order and there is going to be no -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will give the hon. member a couple of minutes to get

quickly to his point of privilege.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is on a point of privilege,

Mr. Premier, so I have to listen to him.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it's a

privilege of a member to have the opportunity to speak on each of the three

stages of reading of a bill. That privilege was not afforded to members. It was

not afforded on the basis that a Committee of the Whole did not constitute one

of the readings. So if a Committee of the Whole didn't constitute one of the

readings, how could speaking on a Committee be deemed to have spoken on third

reading? I think that breached the privileges of the members of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, members are now trying to tie

up the House by challenging Your Honour's ruling under the guise of claiming a

point of privilege. Do they think the people of this Province are utterly

stupid? It's no more a point of privilege than somebody claiming there's paper

dropped on the floor. No more merit than that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the public of this Province have business

to do that needs to be done by this House. Now if the hon. members opposite have

no regard for the taxpayers' dollars that they are wasting by this charade day

after day, night after night, as they try and tie up and prevent the conduct of

government business, the members on this side do!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, if they want to make

this an issue in the next election, we'll do that too!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government is not going

to stand by and see the business of the public of this Province frustrated by

frustrated politicians distraught at having been turfed out of office by a

dissatisfied public, trying to frustrate the conduct of government business

under the guise of raising points of privilege and other stupid arrangements.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to proceed to Orders of the Day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I just want to recess for one moment. I'll recognise the hon.

member when I come back. I just want to recess for a moment.

Recess

[Joined in progress]

MR. MATTHEWS: To that point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

The display that the Premier just put on here shows us what this is all about

once again. Almost ordering the Speaker to get on to Orders of the Day. That is

not going to happen in this House (Inaudible), I say to the Premier! It's not

going to happen!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: That's what this is all about. We saw him

stand in his place yesterday and deny that he made changes to legislation to

take back Canada Pension from children going to school in this Province. We are

saying that he did. We saw him deny it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) wait'll you get the (Inaudible)!

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, we do have the answer. That's what's

happening here, Mr. Speaker. We're exposing the Premier and his government for

what they're trying to do. Because we're here on December 22, he doesn't like

it. Well, tough! You're going to be here longer, I say to the Premier. Who are

the ones who want to get out of here? Who's talking about the date and how we

want to get out, and how close it is to Christmas? The government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. MATTHEWS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Ferryland

has made an excellent point. This all started last night. If members would just

calm down and remember what I said last night and what the Leader of the

Opposition has said again today. We set a precedent last night that was never

set before in this House. A very dangerous precedent. I said then that if there

were mistakes made, honest mistakes made, let's not be too big and too proud to

say we made mistakes. Let's correct the wrong now before we further deteriorate

the transactions and running of this Legislature.

That was my plea last night, it's my plea now. The Member for

Kilbride is right, the Member for Ferryland is right. All our privileges were

breached last night. We should redress it, we should go back to it, and let's

try and get some - that's what's happened here, Mr. Speaker. There was

legislation in front of this House that we needed to take time with. There's

been a lot of things exposed and shown to the public of this Province. Things

with serious implications for the public of this Province. We're going to

continue to do it, I say to members opposite. We're going to continue - that's

our responsibility, as the Premier would say, and we're going to continue to

exercise it.

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

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

clear on the record that I also support the point of privilege raised by the

Member for Ferryland. What the member has said is quite right that an

interpretation such as is contained in the events would leave the House in this

situation, Mr. Speaker, with the kind of motion that was presented, that that

motion could be presented at second reading of a bill. And the result of that

motion is that members would have only one opportunity to speak on the bill and

that would be at second reading; that if that motion, in the words used by the

Government House Leader, were presented at second reading and adopted by this

House, there would then be only one opportunity to speak, at second reading for

twenty minutes only. We would go through the Committee stage, go through third

reading, have the bill passed, and each member would be given only one

opportunity to speak. So, if you spoke at second reading, you couldn't speak

during Committee, you couldn't speak during third reading, and that, Mr.

Speaker, is the essence of the point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has heard enough submissions on this and we are

going to just recess briefly.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As the Chair understands, the hon. member's point of

privilege again, is revisiting the decision that was made by the Chair last

evening. The hon. the Member for Ferryland's point of privilege was that he was

denied speaking on third reading, and that is so. That was the effect, in this

particular case, of the closure. He was permitted to speak on the bill and was

denied speaking in third reading but, as I said, that was the effect of closure.

Now, in terms of moving from the Committee to third reading, that is quite in

order. I read for hon. members, again, the annotations that I read last evening.

Referring to Standing Order 71 in the House of Commons, which is the same as our

Standing Order 58, it says: Every Bill shall receive three several readings on

different days, previously to being passed. On urgent or extraordinary

occasions, a Bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in

one day. And it says: A long-standing parliamentary procedure first established

in the United Kingdom is reflected in this Standing Order, requiring that each

Bill receive three readings, each to occur on different days. This Standing

Order also makes provision for urgent and extraordinary occasions. When the

House so decides a Bill may receive two or more readings - but we were not into

this - on the same day or advance by two or more stages by agreement. The

section refers only to reading stages; thus, for example, consideration in

Committee of the Whole report stage and third reading may all take place on the

same day. That is what happened yesterday and that is what the Chair ruled. The

hon. member has established no point of privilege. The ruling was made and I am

afraid that that was the decision and the Chair explained that quite clearly in

its

preamble. It made the decision that closure was invoked and the Bill was

passed through all the stages.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With due

respect to the decision, it was not the intent of my questioning there at all,

that was not the point that I made. The point that I made, Mr. Speaker, was that

I did not question going from Committee to third reading. If you speak in

Committee, you are denied the right to speak in third reading, closure would

have been invoked at 1:00 a.m. and this was only at 11:15 or 11:20 p.m. - there

was still time to speak within the time limits of closure, and someone who had

spoken in Committee of the Whole, was denied opportunity to speak in third

reading, even though there was sufficient time under closure to debate that. The

House adjourned at about 11:30 - 11:35 p.m. when it would only have been invoked

closure at 1:00 in the morning. So, the privilege of the House, for speakers who

wish to speak, to be recognized, that privilege was infringed upon here by the

House, time went into it for discussion and that time was not given to the

members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair gets the gist of the hon. member's point of

privilege. The Chair made the ruling that the motion was in order and that

closure applied to all aspects of the Bill, so therefore the member's privileges

were not breached - only inasmuch as the rules of closure applied - and I say

that the hon. member has not established a prima facie case.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the

Premier some questions.

There have been public reports that Texaco has been asked to

make a decision on its participation in Hibernia before Christmas. Mr. Epp, I

think, is reported to have said that. I want to ask the Premier: Is he aware of

that request having been made to Texaco; and does he know if Texaco has agreed

to make a decision by that date?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Epp has been working

diligently over the last few weeks to try to have this issue concluded as

quickly as possible - certainly before the end of the year.

He made me aware of his request to Texaco. I do not know that

he has gotten a satisfactory response yet from Texaco, but I can neither speak

for Mr. Epp nor for Texaco. I can only tell the Leader of the Opposition and the

House that I am aware that Mr. Epp has asked Texaco to make their decision in a

timely fashion. He may, in fact, have given them a time within which to make it,

although I was not there so I cannot speak to that; but I can say that, to the

best of my knowledge, Texaco has not taken a definitive position on the issue

yet.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

There is a report, this morning, the Premier probably heard,

out of Toronto, I guess, that the Federal Government would be taking a 12.5 per

cent ownership position in Hibernia.

Can I ask the Premier, assuming that he is up-to-date on what

is going on: Is he aware - does he have any knowledge whether or not the Federal

Government has decided to take a partnership position on Hibernia or if, in

fact, it is contemplating such a move?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no right to speak for

the Federal Government, and it would be inappropriate for me to attempt to

comment on matters that are under consideration where the Federal Government

have been sufficiently courteous to tell me what they have been considering, and

I have been telling them what we have been considering. We are working together

to try to find an acceptable resolution to this difficult problem.

I can say to my hon. friends opposite that the interests of

the Province will be best served by allowing these events to unfold in the

normal course. This kind of speculation - and I point out that what is in the

newspaper this morning is pure speculation. I read what was in The Globe and

Mail, this morning, and I say to all hon. members that that is pure speculation,

so I am not prepared to comment on it.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier keeps making the same

suggestion every time I ask questions on Hibernia: Be quiet now, don't ask about

it, don't speculate about it - don't ask questions about it. In fact, the last

time I asked questions several weeks ago he was going to give me a private

briefing. I never heard anything from him afterwards. He offered to do that.

Let me ask him this. Speculation or no speculation, it is an

important issue. Gulf Canada owned a 25 per cent share in the Hibernia project.

If there were any truth to this at all and the Federal Government took up half

of that 25 per cent, that leaves a further 12.5 per cent remaining. I want to

ask him: In his opinion, if this were accurate - even though he says it is

speculation; he doesn't deny it - who would likely take up the remaining 12.5

per cent share? Would it be Texaco? Would it be the other remaining three

partners, or might it be the Provincial Government? Is the Province considering

anything of this nature?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there are three remaining oil

company partners. There is another oil company, whose name has been made public,

that has a significant interest in an investment. That company is Texaco. There

is another oil company that has expressed an interest in an investment, whose

name has not been made public, and I have no intention of making it public. The

two governments have an obvious interest in seeing the project continue - both

the Federal Government and the Provincial Government. So, as to what is

possible, I would say that any combination of those is possible.

It is possible that Texaco could buy it all. It is possible

that Chevron could buy it all. It is possible Mobil could buy it all. It is

possible that Mobil, Chevron and Petro-Canada could buy it between them. It is

possible that Mobil, Chevron, Petro-Canada, Texaco and another oil company might

buy it between them. It is possible that the two governments might buy it

between them. It is possible that the two governments might buy a portion of it

and the other companies might buy a portion of it. An infinite variety of things

is possible. I am not going to stand here in the House and feed rumour and

speculation by answering those kinds of questions today, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has done just exactly

that by saying that all of those options are possible,. He has just fed the

speculation. What kind of nonsense is he getting on with?

Let me ask him this question: Does the Premier, as the

Premier of this Province, have assurances that Hibernia will continue even if

they don't find a replacement partner? Does he have any assurances of that

nature?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can't guarantee anybody

anything. I can't guarantee what the boards of directors of the oil companies

that are involved will decide, if and when they are faced with a decision on the

issue. I can't guarantee what the Federal Government will decide, if and when

the Federal Government, the Cabinet, is faced with a decision on the issue. I

can't guarantee what the Cabinet of this Province will decide, if and when they

are faced with a decision on the issue. I might have some measure of influence

on the Cabinet in this Province, but I will probably have none on the federal

Cabinet. So I can't give any assurances. The question is ludicrous. Of course, I

can't give assurances, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary: Can I ask the Premier this,

Mr. Speaker? Can the Premier tell the House, if the Province has been asked to

make any concessions in order to keep the Hibernia project going? Can he tell us

that, as leader of the government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, from time to time, the

Province has been asked to do things to aid in the continuation of the project.

I believe, without exception, on every occasion that we have been asked, we have

agreed to do. Some of them were taken up, some of them were not. Some of them

may have had a condition applied that would not be acceptable. So there have

been a variety of things that have been looked at. But, Mr. Speaker, the

Province has honoured all of the obligations and honoured all of the reasonable

responsibilities of the Province in relation to the Hibernia matter.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, one final supplementary.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: One final supplementary to the Premier. This

is a very important matter. We all know that this deadline is out there,

established by Mr. Epp, or whomever, about a decision on this issue. Now the

Provincial Government, in co-operation with the Federal Government has an

agreement in place which guarantees 75 per cent of the expenditures on that

project beyond the current deadline, I think, of December 31, 1992. I want to

ask the Premier: Have the Provincial Government discussed by now - surely, they

must have discussed it. and do they intend to carry on or extend that, if it is

necessary? Have they made a decision in that regard?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. The indemnity period was

not beyond December 1992, it was up to December 1992.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, the hon. member said beyond. Then he

asked the question: Was it intended to extend it? That was the second part of

his question. Was it intended to extend it? Now, Mr. Speaker, if, as and when

the necessity to do that arises, the government will make a decision. The

government has not made a decision on that issue yet and, to the best of my

knowledge, neither has the Federal Government. At least, if they have, they

haven't communicated it to me.

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

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

for the Premier. Last week, with respect to some questions from the Opposition

House Leader dealing with the activities of the Auditor General versus the

University, the Premier responded and made reference to the fact that back in

1988 the previous administration had given Peat Marwick, a private firm, the

authority to audit the books of the University.

Now, the Premier neglected at that time to indicate the

reason for that, which was that government had also given the Auditor General

the authority to charge back to Crown corporations, agencies and other

government-funded bodies, the cost of providing such audited services, and that

a request had come forward from the University, in view of the cost of the

Auditor General's services, and perhaps a timeliness that the audit might be

performed at the University requested of government at the time to hire a

private auditor, so that information would be timely and the cost indeed may

even be less, so those are the circumstances surrounding that, Mr. Speaker. The

Premier however, did not read the last part of the Minute of Council which says:

the Auditor General retaining the right to inspect any and all accounts of

Memorial University at his or her now, discretion, at no cost to the University.

In other words, the private auditors had a right to do the audit but Cabinet at

that time, the government at that time retained for the auditor general the

right on his or her own discretion to audit those books. Would the Premier like

to confirm that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, everything that the hon.

member said is correct but I would go further. The former government went even

further and I think they were quite fair and reasonable in their approach, not

only was this done with a private auditing firm at the time and the auditor

general was charging back, but in fact, tenders were called. It was as a result

of a tender call. The auditor general amongst other private auditing firms bid

on it and the auditor general was high, so the tender was awarded to Peat

Marwick because they were the low bidder, so the government - I do not mean to

in any way be critical of the former - I think I have said on a number of

occasions, I endorse what they did.

I think they took the right course of action, I can only

commend them for doing it. They called tenders, the auditor general bid, the

lowest bidder got it and it happened to be Peat Marwick and they are a very

reputable firm and can do a very competent audit. The Order in Council, if I

recall correctly, reserved the right for the auditor general to inspect, the

same as the Auditor General's Act does now, exactly the same way, so essentially

what the hon. member said is correct except that I add that further note that

they even called tenders at the time.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well therefore, I ask the Premier, having confirmed what he

has just confirmed, therefore, will he not now agree that the auditor general

has the absolute right to audit the books of the University at her discretion,

and last week the Premier also referred to

section 14 of the act, which says: if

the auditor general is not satisfied, talking about the financial work of the

private auditors, the Premier did not talk about

section 17 of the act, which

reserves for the auditor general the right to enter a premises and ask for

documents from any Crown Corporation, group or agency, regardless. Will the

Premier confirm, Mr. Speaker, that not only the DMC gives the auditor general

the right, but

section 17 of the act gives the auditor general the right to do

that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker,

section 14,

section 17,

section 12,

section 20, all of those together reserve for the auditor general

the right to, in effect, supervise or satisfy herself that audits have been

properly performed in respect of any entity that receives the vast majority of

its funding from the Crown, and the majority of whose board of directors or

board of management is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, so there

is no question about the reservation of that right. But where an auditor has

already been appointed there is no right to do the total audit unless, it is

reserved for the auditor general in

section 14, unless the auditor general is

dissatisfied with the audit that has been done, then there is an unquestioned

right. But the auditor general can go in and at the auditor general's expense,

at no cost to the university, at the auditor general's expense, the auditor

general can go in and satisfy herself as to the management systems, the

accounting systems in place at the university and so on, and satisfy herself as

to whether they are appropriate or inappropriate or not and I should say Mr.

Speaker, that I do not think there is any difference between the auditor general

and the university on this matter.

The biggest problem out of this whole thing, I should advise

my hon. friend opposite, the university is quite concerned that the general

description we have put in the Auditor General's Act that says: any entity that

receives the majority of its funding from the public treasury and the majority

of whose directors are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, is

deemed to be an Agency of the Crown. Now, the university's problem is, they do

not want to be seen to be an agency of the Crown because their sense of

independence, academic freedom and so on appears to them to be challenged.

Now I understand that perception. It was never intended. One

will see that the university is not mentioned in the Auditor General's Act, it

is just that the definition is so very general that it incorporates any entity

that gets the majority of its money from the Crown and the majority of whose

board is nominated by the Crown. So we are looking for a solution to that. We

don't want to do anything to impair the independence of the university, or the

perception of the independence of the university or academic freedom of the

university. We will do everything possible to ensure that that is maintained.

The university also understands and acknowledges the

responsibility of the auditor general to satisfy herself that the $110 million

of public funds voted by this House is managed properly and accounted for

properly, and they have no real quarrel with respect to that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have worked out a

resolution, and I hope within a very few days to be able to make a formal

announcement on it.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Premier

that we also are concerned about the autonomy of the university and the autonomy

of the auditor general. We are also worried about the importance of accounting

to the people of this Province for the expenditure of $130 million of taxpayers'

money.

Let me ask the Premier this, Mr. Speaker: Is the Premier

aware that the auditor general did not challenge any of the work of Peat

Marwick; that Peat Marwick did what is known as a financial audit; that the

auditor general has a right and a responsibility to do what is known as a

comprehensive audit; that there is a distinct difference, in that the auditor

general, as separate and distinct from the private auditor who would not

necessarily do that, would look at conflict of interest legislation, would look

at public tender acts, would look at wage restraint acts, and would look at

local preference acts, these types of legislation that private auditors would

not concern themselves with; and that the auditor general did not ask to do a

financial audit, did not want to go over the work of Peat Marwick, but simply

wanted to ensure to the House of Assembly, what she is bound to do, that these

particular pieces of legislation were being followed? Is the Premier aware of

that, Mr. Speaker. And in view of that, in view of the references we just

provided of the power of the act and the provisions in the MC of 1988, will the

Premier now direct the university to comply with the auditor general's request

and the Public Accounts Committee's request?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is both wrong

and right. He is wrong when he uses the word: The auditor general has the right

to do a `comprehensive' audit. That is incorrect. She has the right to do a

compliance audit to ensure full compliance with legislative and policy

requirements, compliance, for example, with The Wage Restraint Act, compliance

with other statutory provisions and so on.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the meeting we held a few days

ago, with the auditor general, the auditor general disclosed to my colleagues

and I, who met with the auditor general and the president of the University,

that that is what she intended. I have no problem with that. She has a perfect

right and responsibility to do that. Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be surprised but

that, as we speak, she is in the university now doing just that. Because that is

the way the meeting was left, that she would be in the process of doing it. So I

have no problem with that.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: One very brief supplementary. Would the

Premier tell us now, in response to the special report from the Public Accounts

Committee, is he prepared to ask the House of Assembly, which is his

responsibility, not to intervene himself, is he, as Leader of the government,

prepared to ask the House of Assembly to direct the university to appear before

the Public Accounts Committee?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to ask

the university, but I am prepared to make sure that the Minister of Education

sits before the Public Accounts Committee and responds to all of the questions

of the Public Accounts Committee as to exactly what the university did. Now that

is what the former members insisted on when they sat on this side of the House.

That is what the current Minister of Finance -

MR. WINDSOR: I am talking about the right under this act

(inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: He wanted an answer. He may not like my

answer, but at least hear it, and he can tell the world if he thinks it is wrong

after. But he will be no brighter if he doesn't hear it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is also exactly what the Minister of

Finance agreed on, with the hon. gentleman who is asking the question, when he

was in a position to decide on it, and when he insisted that the responsibility

of the university was to appear with and through the Minister of Education, who

speaks for the university and whose department seeks the vote of this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the precise way it has been done in

the past without exception and that is the way we intend to do it in the future.

And, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, if it is necessary to put that beyond question

so as to make sure that nobody has any doubts about the independence of the

university and the academic freedom of the university, we are quite prepared to

bring legislation before this House to make such a provision abundantly clear.

Because that has been the practice of forty years and it is exactly what the

hon. member, who is now shouting with such righteous indignation, who is now

displaying this great righteous indignation, that is precisely the position he

and his colleague, the present Leader of the Opposition, that is exactly the

position they maintained for a whole seventeen years, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Social Services. I have a

couple of questions arising out of the fire that destroyed the Harvey Road

social services building and offices last night. My first concern relates to the

destruction of records. I know the Minister of Justice indicated that the vault

remains but I wonder if the minister can tell us whether he has received a

briefing from his officials to find out what records might have been destroyed.

I know there is already concern about very important records regarding adoptions

in this Province that may have been contained at Harvey Road. Many people are

concerned that their quest for information about their natural parents and other

matters in relation to their adoption may have been lost. Can the minister

advise whether he has received as of yet a briefing from his officials on what

records may have been kept at social services that were not in the vault or some

indication as to what may be the loss in terms of public records of a very

sensitive and important nature?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity as

well to commend my staff, many of whom were there the entire night working with

this very bad situation, with this terrible fire. The records he speaks of are

contained in a vault that we have not yet gained access to. As soon as we get

the go-ahead from the fire department we will be able to access the vault. We

are hoping that the records have not been affected by the fire or the smoke. We

had the staff of the archives in this morning who are experts in this matter and

they assure us that there is a good chance that we may retrieve most of the

records, child welfare records, adoption records, and so on. They are very

valuable to us. I should be able to report better to the House in the next

couple of days. As soon as we gain access to the vault we will be better able to

report on the condition of the records.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know if all records would have been kept in the

vault. I know there are quite a lot of current matters that are outstanding,

recipients of social services or those who are seeking social assistance at the

current time and may well be very dependent on the state of these records. Is

the minister taking any measures to ensure, perhaps by relaxing certain rules to

ensure that adequate social assistance, particularly short-term and emergency

assistance, can be provided by his departmental officials over the next few days

and during this Christmas season?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, there is quite a

misunderstanding. As a matter of fact last evening we took pains, my officials

and I, to explain to many of the members of the media that the building that was

destroyed by fire is not a social services building anymore. We did not have any

staff in that building. They have been moved to either Anderson Avenue or one of

the other two offices in the city, one at Mount Pearl and one at Regatta Ford.

We had no records there in the context of social assistance. The records that

are contained in the vault are child welfare and adoption records which are

important to us, but in terms of providing assistance to social services

recipients per se, Mr. Speaker, the records necessary for that and the files we

use are in the other three offices in the city.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a final supplementary to the minister these are matters

that many are concerned about, Mr. Speaker. I know that media reports indicate

that approximately 100 people have been left homeless by the events last night,

and I know there were approximately 1000 people evacuated who probably may well

be able to return to their homes today or later on. Has his department played a

role, or what role has his department played in trying to provide emergency

assistance to ensure that these individuals, particularly at this time of the

year, are not going to go without and can have some adequate Christmas despite

the tragedy that occurred?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, last evening we had staff

at the community college, Cabot College in the area, there throughout the

evening. About twenty or twenty-five people were affected, who were assisted

throughout the night. We understand there are some 200 or 300 more people

dispersed throughout the City with family and friends, and we are trying to get

a handle on the situation of those people right now as to whether they need our

assistance by way of food, clothing, or shelter.

I had a report, actually, just before I came over here, from

the police department, giving me the numbers; but I have asked for a further

breakdown as to where those people are and whether or not our assistance is

needed or whether they would be staying on with friends until they can return to

their homes.

I should again be able to report further on that when I get a

breakdown from my officials.

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

MR. HARRIS: I take it the minister is saying that people

in need of assistance from his department are welcome to call and will be looked

after within the minister's guidelines, and perhaps some special guidelines for

this tragedy. Is that what the minister is saying?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are not in a normal

social services assistance situation. This is an emergency, and whatever is

necessary will be done out of the norm. We do not follow the regular rules and

regulations. Certainly, as it is an emergency, a disaster in many cases, we will

respond quickly; and as soon as I have a detailed report to me of the situation

of these families that are affected, that are displaced from their homes, we

will respond accordingly with accommodation or food or clothing or whatever is

necessary.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Just a follow-up to the questions to the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Social Services.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I am sorry - the Minister of Social

Services. I missed his first answer, so he might have answered this, but: Is

there an emergency response team set up with a headquarters and a special number

that people can call if they are in trouble, over the next day or so, because of

that fire? Is there one number or one contact person that they might contact?

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

MR. HOGAN: Who are you asking?

MR. GULLAGE: I was not sure, Mr. Speaker - he said

Municipal Affairs.

Yes, there is a team in place. It is comprised of people from

emergency measures; obviously from the fire commissioner's office; the Red Cross

is involved, and my own staff; so that team goes into effect the moment a

disaster like this occurs.

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

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Social Services?

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, Municipal Affairs this time.

Mr. Speaker, did the minister get a briefing today from the

fire commissioner's office on the reported problems that the fire fighters had

last night in maintaining a proper water pressure in that higher levels area of

town? It is reported that they had very much trouble keeping the water pressure,

and the city engineer's department is reported to have told them that if they

increased the water pressure they would collapse all of the pipes in the area -

water mains in the area.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I have had no such report. As I

understand it, the fire commissioner officials and others were on the scene at

the Avalon Community College. That is where, I guess, the bulk of the emergency

response people are taking place out of now. They will establish a desk and

further information, I guess, or any other reports will be forthcoming over the

next hours, I guess.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the

Minister of Fisheries.

Some time ago, in response to an application for a processing

licence, the minister stated that there was a freeze on, and due to the

moratorium there was an assessment being done upon licenses to the processing

sector. I wonder if the assessment has been completed? What status would the

licence, presently held in Trepassey, be in at present?

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

MR. CARTER: No, Mr. Speaker, the assessment has not been

completed and the status of the Trepassey licenses, along the lines that I

stated to the mayor of Trepassey some two weeks ago I guess, that the plant is

not operating and the licence is held in abeyance until this analysis is

completed.

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

Capes, supplementary.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister.

In making the assessment is the minister going to be conscious of history and

geography and the population base rather than that a plant is closed, and a

plant closed, remains closed philosophy?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, that is the sort of thing that

will be decided later but certainly the fact that Trepassey has had a long

history in the fish processing business, one of the oldest plants I suppose on

the Island, totally dependent on the fishery for its existence, that will

certainly be a very important consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following motion:

WHEREAS school bus transportation is provided by the

provincial government through the Department of Education to students who live a

long distance from their school at no direct cost to students or their parents;

AND

WHEREAS in the City of St. John's where the St. John's

Transportation Commission provides a bus service, school buses paid for by the

Department of Education may not operate, and students or their parents must

directly pay the total cost of school bus transportation;

AND

WHEREAS this situation creates economic hardship to many

families and results in loss of school time, lack of safety and other problems

for students whose parents cannot afford to pay bus fares;

AND

WHEREAS this situation is unfair and results in

inequality of treatment and discrimination against St. John's students and their

families;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly go on

record as supporting equality of treatment of all school students and their

families regarding school bus transportation;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the government be directed to

provide school bus transportation to students within the City of St. John's on

the same basis as provided throughout the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the

Opposition asked me the following question: "I want to ask the Premier, is he

aware that the Workers' Compensation Commission has already written disabled

workers in the Province, telling them that as soon as this legislation is

passed, Workers' Compensation will deduct the full amount of dependents'

benefits - not benefits that the workers themselves will receive, but benefits

that the dependents of disabled workers will receive from Canada Pension? Is he

aware of that?"

I told him no, I didn't think that was the situation or that

they were doing anything improper, but that I would check and find out. He

persisted and insisted that: "It is one thing to take away disability pensions

that injured workers receive from Canada Pension, but it is quite another to rob

the disabled workers' children of the benefits they are going to receive from

Canada Pension. That is the difference here. I want to ask the Premier: is he

aware that that is occurring and about to occur? If so, how can his government

justify robbing children of their own benefits, not the workers?"

I once again told him I would undertake to find out. But he

persisted, and then he got to the point of saying: "...this is outright

thievery." Now, I remind hon. members of his precise words. "...This is outright

thievery on the part of the government led by the Premier of this Province,

that's what is happening here with this legislation, outright thievery, and the

Premier doesn't have the guts to stand up and face the people of the Province

and tell them that."

He goes on to say: he always blames it on somebody else. "Why

does he not say here in the House today, that he will check into this; if the

allegations are accurate, that this legislation is taking away this money from

dependents, that he will make sure the legislation does not pass without the

provision being brought in?"

I'm happy to tell the House that I've checked on it, and the

hon. member's proposition is totally and completely inaccurate. There exists

under the present statute, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Oh yes. I know the letter was sent. His

allegations are inaccurate. I know the letter was sent! I also know what the

letter said, I also know it's false, I also know the Workers' Compensation

Commission has told us they understand it to have been wrong and they will

correct it. Now here, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: "Oh, oh!" Here's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) they want the answers, Mr.

Speaker, here are the answers. The existing legislation has this clause in it: a

benefit relative to an injury that a worker is entitled to receive under the

Canada Pension Plan may be considered as wages that the worker is capable of

earning in calculating the compensation to be paid by the Commission for loss of

earning capacity.

"May be considered." On March 22, 1991, the directors of the

Workers' Compensation Board decided that acting under that they would offset

Canada Pension Plan benefits. They made the decision. I'm happy to table in the

House today, if I can find it, a press release dated May 2, 1991, announcing,

Mr. Speaker, here it is - this is a workers compensation press release

announcing they are proposing to offset primary and secondary CPP benefits

against wage loss, dependency benefits and payments to workers who are 100 per

cent functionally impaired. In addition, CPP offsets will be applied against net

earnings rather than gross earnings.

That was the position announced by the commission pursuant to

the legislation as it now exists. Then, Mr. Speaker, in July of 1992, the

directors met again and decided that they would not make it retroactive, that it

would come into effect on January 1st, 1993. All of that was done, Mr. Speaker,

as a result of the decisions of the board under the existing legislation. Then,

Mr. Speaker, the board not only made a decision, they acknowledged that they

could not do otherwise. They acknowledged that they could not pay exempt CPP -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Listen, and the hon. members may learn

something.

The board also, Mr. Speaker, acknowledged that CPP benefits

paid directly to children between 18 and 25 years old will not be offset. Why,

Mr. Speaker?.... because there is no legislative authority to do so and, Mr.

Speaker, the new legislation will not give them legislative authority to do so.

The new legislation does one thing, it changes the 'may' to 'shall' and that was

done at the commissions request, Mr. Speaker, and on the recommendation of the

Board of Review.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Torngat, if he

would listen to something he would end up with something more between his ears

than a blank spot, if he would just listen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the legislation was requested

specifically by the commission and recommended by the review committee to make

sure that everybody was treated equally. Instead of it being 'may' and

permissive, once the board made their decision, just listen, 'shall', so we are

substituting 'may' for 'shall'. The board having made their decision in March of

1991 announced it publicly in May of 1991 and set the date for it to come into

effect. In July of 1992, they asked us and the review committee recommended that

it be changed from 'may' to 'shall'. It does not enable them to offset benefits

paid to students who are receiving it in their own right as the Leader of the

Opposition asked yesterday. So, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that as I said

yesterday, he had it all bottom up.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride on a point

of order.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a point of order. The hon. the Member

for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am not letting the Premier

get away with misleading this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, I will not do it.

I will not sit here and listen to it. Mr. Speaker, the letter that was written

to the recipients, actually stated in the letter in the second paragraph: under

the proposed legislation currently before the House of Assembly, Workers

Compensation Commission will also be required to offset Canada Pension Plan

secondary benefits against workers compensation benefits. Mr. Speaker, that was

the

interpretation that Workers Compensation had on the legislation until the

hon. Leader of the Opposition brought it up and Mr. Speaker, when it was brought

to their attention, hopefully they will send out corrected letters -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Hopefully they will send out corrected

letters, Mr. Speaker. The letter, Mr. Speaker, says 92 12 09 so I guess that is

the 9th of December 1992, Mr. Speaker, that is a week ago -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I

just got finished telling the House the commission sent the letter out, that was

wrong, and the Leader of the Opposition was wrong in what he said and what I

said very clearly, just read Hansard yesterday, Mr. Speaker, was: if the

commission has done something incorrect or inappropriate we will see that they

take steps to correct it. Now the minister advises me this morning, they

expressed their apologies to the House and to everybody concerned for making a

totally incorrect statement and presumably they will take corrective measures

but Mr. Speaker, the allegation of the Leader of the Opposition about thievery

from people is offensive and I request that he apologize, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is ruling on the point of order that the hon.

member raised. Obviously there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a point of

order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that time when the Premier was

speaking, prior to the point of order, he made reference to the Member for

Torngat Mountains saying that if he would listen he would have more between his

ears than a rattle box, I think were his words.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that for a man who comes into this

Legislature and always preaches decorum going around this Province, he has

brought a new level to the decorum, a new low to the decorum of this House by

making such statements. Now, the Premier is the man who preaches that in this

House, no one else, but the Premier and, Your Honour, you sat there and listened

to the Premier as we all did, making this statement. I think it is unbecoming

for a man of the Premier's stature, unbecoming for the Premier of this Province

to make such a statement, and I would suggest that he probably consider

withdrawing it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of merit in

what the hon. member says, a lot of merit in what he says, but I just point out

to Your Honour, you sat here and you heard the constant babbling that you would

only expect to come from somebody who didn't know what he was doing, who had no

respect for the House or other members.

Now, Mr. Speaker, out of exasperation I asked the hon. member

to sit back and listen. Now the Member for Burin - Placentia West is quite

correct. This is not appropriate to the decorum of the House, having to make

these kinds of comment but I sat here, I tried not to shout, I have in the end,

torn my throat apart trying to shout to be heard because a variety of members,

the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains, in particular, but as often as not,

the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, are rattling on, on a constant

basis in an effort to prevent anybody else from being heard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member makes a point and the Premier makes a point,

and hon. members should not be making provocative statements to each other.

MR. WARREN: He doesn't have the guts to (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We were into Answers to Questions for which Notice has been

given.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on behalf of 1,332 petitioners who petitioned

the government concerning workers' compensation benefits. These are in addition

to the some 7,600 that I presented yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, these current petitioners and petitions were not

available to me at the time, but these petitioners also say that, they verily

believe that the cuts and benefits to injured workers will cause undue economic

hardship to workers and their families, and believe that cuts to injured workers

is an attempt to blame the victim for their injuries. We therefore demand that

the Provincial Government immediately reject all recommendations by the Workers'

Compensation Statutory Review Committee for cuts in benefits to injured workers.

Now, yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when I rose to speak on behalf

of these petitioners and express the concerns that these petitioners raised, the

minister, in reply, made a number of remarks which I find offensive to these

petitioners and to workers in general and injured workers, in particular. He

suggested that the petitioners are being misled by Opposition members indicating

that their benefits were being cut and he suggested that, in fact, the benefits

of injured workers were not being cut.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that kind of verbal sleight of hand really

doesn't cut any ice with the workers of this Province, who recognize full well

that the government, through its actions in this legislation, are setting up a

regime which is going to deprive injured workers of the kinds of benefits they

receive under the system, that they received before this and that they receive

currently. We also see the government's insistence, that any attempts by workers

to replace their income that is going to be clawed back and cut by this

government, any such attempts are going to be made illegal when they are based

on an agreement between an employer and an employee, such as occur in many

collective agreements that are negotiated freely and fairly in this Province,

and often at the expense of other benefits that workers have given up, in order

to get those benefits for injured workers. Those types of provisions are being

made illegal.

Now, we have also the issue that has been raised over the

last couple of days on what the Workers' Compensation Commission is doing with

respect to Canada Pension benefits. Now, Mr. Speaker, despite the correction

made in the policy as a result of this matter being raised in this hon. House, I

think there is also cold comfort for workers in the words of the Premier today,

because what has happened - what this incident is indicative of, is the

mentality that this government has forced upon the Workers' Compensation

Commission. Even though, without authority, they have adopted the claw back

mentality that this government has set the standard for in its legislation on

workers' compensation; in its policy directives and refusal to go along with the

Canada for fishery workers; their refusal to support early retirement programs

for workers; their attempts to insist on claw back provisions in federal

government support payments to fishermen.

This is a claw back mentality that obviously the Workers'

Compensation Commission has caught on to, because the standard and the tone is

being set by this government; and injured workers, and workers in general, who

may never, ever, have made a claim to Workers' Compensation, and may never make

a claim to Workers' Compensation, are also suffering from the fear that their

income security will be threatened because this government has adopted policies

that are detrimental to injured workers. They are detrimental to a proper

incentive for workers to ensure work place health and safety; and they are

detrimental, obviously, to the families of injured workers, on very flimsy kinds

of economic theory - the theory being that if you penalize everybody there may

be a few people who will go back to work a little earlier. That seems to be the

theoretical basis on refusing to allow top ups. The theoretical basis on

refusing to allow a full compensation for workers is wrong, and it should not be

allowed to proceed. There is still time for this House to reject these changes

and to reject this legislation, and I urge them to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to stand in my place in this Assembly today and

support the 1,332 workers who have signed this petition presented by the Member

for St. John's East.

If this debate - we got lectured in this House of Assembly a

couple of times now in the last few days about dragging out the debate and

taking too much time of this House of Assembly and wasting the taxpayers' money.

We have been blamed for that over the last little while, and had we not done

that, had we not been able to take the time of the House to properly scrutinize

the legislation that is going through the House of Assembly, we would not have

been able to present petitions such as were presented here today. We would not

have been able to correct an injustice that was caused by the legislation and

overruled by the Premier yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition caught the

government in a scam to steal from the students of this Province.

Had it not been raised in this House of Assembly, Workers'

Compensation would have continued to take away the money from the students -

$154 every two weeks, I believe it is, or is it every week?

MR. SIMMS: One hundred and fifty-four every month.

MR. R. AYLWARD: One hundred and fifty-four dollars every

month they would have deducted from the parents, or from the mothers and injured

workers of this Province who are responsible for those dependent children over

eighteen years of age.

Had not this debate continued, and had not we raised some

points, and had not we gotten some minimal coverage of the debate in the media -

very minimal I might say - there is not much coverage because there are other

things of interest at this time of year. Most people are interested in their

Christmas gifts and their Christmas shopping and other big news items like the

fire last night, so you will not get much coverage of what is happening in this

House of Assembly, which is all the more reason why we should adjourn today and

come back in January - January 2nd or 3rd - and get on with the business of this

Province and allow people to try to understand the legislation we are putting

through this House.

If we went to the committee system with the legislation, as

we should be doing in this House of Assembly, 1,332 people would not need to

sign a petition to come in here. They could get a representative and go to the

committee and make their presentations.

Workers' Compensation would not have been able to try to

steal the money from the students - steal $154 a month Canada Pension benefit -

from the students who get that for educational purposes in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from a constituent of mine, who

phoned the Premier's office yesterday and was told by Paul Sparkes, I believe,

was the name of the person - was told by a person from the Premier's office,

that this had nothing to do with the Premier, absolutely nothing to do with the

Premier. They were just going to take your money and it was all the fault of

Workers' Compensation, until he read out the letter to him where Workers'

Compensation said, 'Under the proposed legislation currently before the House of

Assembly, the Workers' Compensation Commission will also be required' - not

'may' or 'shall', as we were told here today, they will 'be required to offset

Canada Pension Plan secondary benefits against your workers' compensation

benefits.' Now, that is a clear statement. I will have this person call Workers'

Compensation today and when we are here for Question Period tomorrow we will

know if Workers' Compensation is going to do exactly what the Premier said

today. I will know in a couple of hours, when that person gets through to

someone down at Workers' Compensation, whether they are going to withdraw this

letter and whether they are going to straighten out the mess that has been

created by this government, straighten out the thievery that this government

tried to pull on the students and injured workers of this Province, to try to

straighten out the sham and the con-job that this government is doing not only

with this legislation but with much other legislation. The Premier should stand

in this Legislature and apologize for the stress and strain he has caused the

injured workers of this Province by having them threatened. The person who got

this letter on December 9 was planning to sell his home.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with mixed feelings that I rise to address the petition

because I do recognize how serious the petitioners were. The two speakers today

in support of the petition, the presenter for St. John's East and the hon. the

Member for Kilbride, again demonstrate that they are only interested in politics

and not at all interested in the serious petitioners that signed the document

because they have some concerns and they wanted them expressed. Both members

again today showed a total insincerity.

Again, we have the Member for St. John's East trying to

suggest that I said something yesterday which I absolutely did not say and

misrepresenting the words when he knows the difference. I find that a little bit

disturbing and distressing and I do not think it serves the petitioners at all

well.

What we said yesterday and what we said again today is that

we are making the changes - and we have explained this to every person in

Newfoundland and Labrador - we are making the changes so that the benefits for

injured workers will not be reduced to zero. If we do not make these changes,

that is the ultimate result, and everybody in this Legislature understands that.

But even when they know the facts they still present them as being something

different.

What the hon. the Member for Kilbride gets on with, Mr.

Speaker, is nothing short of being absolutely shameful and disgraceful from the

point of view that even when he is presented with the facts, he still stands to

represent an exact opposite view, when he knows full well that it is completely

different from what he is saying.

It is unfortunate, because when I spoke with the acting CEO

this morning at Workers' Compensation, and last night, and yesterday afternoon,

his only question was: Why wouldn't the Leader of the Opposition, who brought

this to the floor of the Legislature - if he really wanted the answers, why

wouldn't he call me instead of running off with something at the House of

Assembly? I reminded him - I said, I know you have not been in your job very

long but you have to understand, in dealing with those kinds of politicians,

they were not interested in the answer, they were not interested in information,

they were only interested in sensationalizing something so that they could make

the news, politicking.

The two members today, in presenting this petition, I think,

shortchanged the petitioners by getting on with the same kind of tripe, even

when they had been given the facts. We will go through the facts one more time,

Mr. Speaker, because it is clear that the CEO has apologized on behalf of the

Commission because the board of directors didn't see the letter. That is not

what board of directors do. They set policy, they took the decisions and the

staff was left to write the letters. The letters are exactly as the hon. member

pointed out. That is exactly what the letters say, and the CEO apologies because

in reflecting on the chain of events, they recognize they have attributed

something to a government action which is absolutely false and which was a

decision taken by the board.

Now, with that explained here in the Legislature today, the

hon. member still gets on with a diatribe, refusing to acknowledge that he has

been given the facts, that the decision was made by the board initially in March

of 1991, was made public in May of 1991. The details of it were re-affirmed in

July of 1992. And they made a decision, without any reference to any change in

the legislation, because it wasn't required for them to make their decision,

that it would become effective January 1, 1993. It was clear. The CEO pointed

out that had the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or any other member in this

Legislature called, they would have been able to clarify for them that even

though the letter didn't say so, there was no intention of dealing with people

eighteen years of age and over for offset purposes, it was only intended to deal

with dependant benefits up to the age of eighteen.

That was why they apologised - because they didn't make that

clear in their letter. They know that they misrepresented, through a

misunderstanding on their part, and portrayed a decision of the board as if it

was a decision of the government. They sincerely apologise to everybody in this

Legislature, to the people of Newfoundland, and to the 396 people who received

the letters. They have assured us today that they will write a new letter, Mr.

Speaker, to the 396 people, pointing out clearly that it was a decision of the

board of directors and that there was no intention for that decision to affect

people eighteen years of age and over, that, in fact, it will take place on

January 1, with or without any reference to legislative change occurring in Bill

48 in this Legislature.

So they apologised. They know they made a mistake. They are

going to correct it. They just feel very badly that again, hon. members here

wanted to politic with the issue rather than call the Commission and get the

facts and address it. Instead of that we get it represented in the House as

thievery and robbery attributed to the government. That is the kind of

mudslinging and muckraking that the members opposite consistently get themselves

involved with. They do not want to deal with facts, Mr. Speaker, even when the

facts are clearly given.

The facts have been clearly given in this Legislature today

by the Premier, by myself now, as the minister with responsibility, and they are

continuing to misrepresent it every single time they get an opportunity.

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

The hon. the minister's time has elapsed.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before I ask the House to move

into Committee - I haven't had a chance to speak to my hon. friend because I

understood he wanted to get on in Question Period. I think it appropriate that I

move the motion that the House not rise at 5:00 p.m. Let me say, I have no

desire to stay here beyond whatever time the House wants, but we have a

legislative agenda which must be addressed and, Sir, the government intend to

ask the House to address it. That being so, I make the motion, Sir.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, really, what

the Government House Leader is saying, then, is that we won't have a supper

break tonight. Is that what he's saying? Is that really what you are telling us

to prepare for?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) again, or -

MR. ROBERTS: No, what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I

am not certain that the motion can be moved in Committee. Therefore I am going

to move it when Your Honour is in the Chair. I would then suggest, once we get

the debate under way in here, and things are moving at whatever speed and in

whatever direction they are moving, that my hon. friend and I might take a few

moments behind the Speaker's Chair and see if we can compare notes.

I am simply leaving the options open. I am largely, to be

quite candid, in the hands of the Opposition. If they choose to dig in, they

have every right within the rules to do it, and I will respect that and operate

within the rules, but I must reserve the options over here. My hope, indeed,

would be either that we would - it is 3:50 p.m. now and we are only now on

Orders of the Day. And I don't quarrel - there will be no objection from me.

If hon. gentlemen opposite, and the hon. lady opposite, wish

to carry on the debate we will give them the opportunity to do it. I have no

quarrel with that. But we are going to have to address this Order Paper. I am

putting a motion down, I say again to my hon. friend, so that when he and I

consult, at least the options are available to us. We will try to come to an

agreement. I can speak for those on this side. If he is in a position where he

is able to make commitments for those on his side, we ought to be able to move

ahead. If he isn't able to make commitments -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry? Well, then, that's fine, I will

sit down and let him. Mr. Speaker, I am sure, will allow us to do it. Please

carry on.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The only point I want to make, Mr. Speaker,

is that I think there are some thirty pieces of legislation here. It is only in

one person's judgement whether or not we have made enough progress to take a

supper break and that is in the Government House Leader's - I mean we can do

what we like between now and 5:00 p.m. and in his opinion then, if we have not

made enough progress we go straight through. So I think we may as well decide

now that we are going straight through and have it over with because that is

what we are going to end up doing regardless of what happens between now and

5:00 p.m., that is my opinion. I would prefer that we stopped at 5:00 p.m. and

came at 7:00 p.m. and let the chips fall as they may but let us not say that we

are going to judge where we are at 7:00 p.m. because I know what is going to

happen at 7:00 p.m. We will not have made enough progress looking at what is

left on this order paper, so then we are here all night anyway so we may as well

accept that now and make plans accordingly, those who want to go and get a bit

of supper go and those who want to stay, stay and whatever. Stop trying to play

games with one another I say to the Government House Leader because that is all

we are doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, once again we seem to

be in a situation where the Government House Leader seems to want to proceed by

fiat of the government majority and seeks co-operation after the fact. The

normal procedure in this House has been that Government House Leaders have

indicated by agreement and consultation as to what is expected, a reasonable

course of business, reasonable hours and they received co-operation. This

minister, Mr. Speaker, is intending apparently to impose co-operation, or try to

impose co-operation by him making up his mind as he goes along of what he wants

and what he does not want. Well if that is the way it has to be, Mr. Speaker, I

guess that is the way it has to be but I would certainly have preferred to have

a supper break so that we could have normal hours of operation and not have the

kind of farce that we had last week where the government was bringing important

legislation in at twenty minutes to five in the morning. If that is the way the

Government House Leader intends to operate the House then I guess we have to put

up with it.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. The hon.

gentleman for St. John's East is obviously not listening to what I am saying or

I am not saying it sufficiently clearly. I am putting the motion down now, Mr.

Speaker, simply because when the House goes into committee, in my understanding

of the rules which may very well not be complete, but in my understanding of the

rules, Mr. Speaker, I may not be able to make the motion in committee therefore

I will have to go through all of the business of rising the committee and so

forth. I will then speak with my hon. friend for Grand Bank and then

subsequently to my hon. friend for St. John's East to see if we could arrive at

an accommodation.

The problem is, as my hon. friend will acknowledge, that

unless both sides are able to keep their undertakings and their only

undertakings behind the Chair, they are not enforceable in the House, unless

both sides can keep them there is no point going there and in that case, given

the experience I have had in this House of two-and-a-half hours on a simple one

clause Bill with inane speeches being repeated endlessly, than I must leave the

options open so that at the end of the day the government are able to bring

forward their program and submit it to the judgement of the House. Perhaps we

could put the motion, Mr. Speaker, if it passes we will carry on.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, it is now seven minutes to four,

we are talking about whether or not the Government House Leader is going to move

that we have a supper break in an hour and seven minutes, at 5:00 p.m. Mr.

Speaker, it is the government and the Government House Leader that has us here

two days before Christmas with thirty-two pieces of legislation on the Order

Paper, many of which were only printed and distributed in the last few days.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is the government that has the House sitting so close to

Christmas with so much outstanding business. Now the government, the Government

House Leader and the Premier have two choices; they can keep the House in

overdrive, debating in marathon stretches through the night leading up to

Christmas, to try to ram through their business, their tax break to Fortis,

their new municipal consumption tax and their other measures or they can adjourn

now, have a civilized break for Christmas, allow members and more importantly

staff of the House to go home and be with their families for Christmas,

reconvene the House early in the new year and then proceed with the outstanding

business in a sensible way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are not going to allow debating to go on about the

procedure. These are things normally done behind the curtain and we cannot allow

to have debate here when there is no provision for it. You heard the motion, all

those in favour of the motion please say 'aye'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion 'nay'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Could we rise and go into committee please,

Sir?

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I had a word with the Clerk

but let me put on the record that I will ask the Committee to address the bills

in the order in which they are on the Order Paper. We'll just move along and see

how we get along with them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 1, Committee of the Whole on a Bill,

"An Act Respecting The Licensing And Inspection Of Health And Social Agencies,"

Bill 46.

CLERK (Noel): Clause 1.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Chairman.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Chairperson. I'd certainly like to

have a few words on this Bill, not only because of what's in it but perhaps

because of what's not in it. It's a rather vague bill in a number of ways.

It talks about

An Act Respecting The Licensing And Inspection

Of Health And Social Agencies, and I'm presuming from some of the

definitions

that we're talking about most of the health and social agencies, from the small

home where three or four people are staying, through the boarding homes, and

according to

definitions here talking about nursing homes. I presume we're

talking about nursing homes also. So it's sort of an all-encompassing bill.

The government over the last few years has done quite a job

on the health care in this Province, and we're all well aware of the concerns

being faced by the various boards and agencies as they try to make sure that

they can balance their budget and yet provide a reasonable level of health care

to the residents they serve.

It's getting harder and harder to do that. We wonder

sometimes if government in its wisdom, and in the type of facilities they are

setting up around the Province, are getting the best bang for their buck. When

we look at the cost to look after the residents of nursing homes, people who are

in hospital for extended care and so on, and perhaps even when we look at the

cost of looking after people in their own homes, which is supposed to be the

ideal way, a number of us have concerns as to whether or not there are not

better ways of making sure that our people are looked after, and that the whole

thing costs the Province a lot less.

One of the best bargains we have in health care in this

Province is the home for special care. What we used to call the private nursing

home, now called boarding homes or homes for special care. If figures haven't

changed very much over the last two or three years, and I don't think they have,

then it costs this government approximately $2,000 a year per person in those

homes. That's roughly $200 a month to subsidize people who are in the private

boarding homes or the homes for special care. These homes are among the best you

will find anywhere. We have several in Newfoundland that have an extremely high

reputation as to the level of care - I won't say health care - but care that

they provide the residents who are there.

Now in our Province if we looked at the people who require

some kind of health care, whether it be very minimal - health care that can be

administered in the home without any professional help; health care that can be

provided in the private boarding homes - or health care, of course, that could

be provided only in nursing homes and in hospitals.

If we looked at the total number of people requiring care,

and could divide them up and place them realistically as to the level of care

and the agencies in which they could receive this care then, I think, Mr.

Chairman, the Province could save a tremendous amount of money. However, it is

because of the amount of placements, I guess, that have been made over the years

- we still hear people talking about people who are in nursing homes, where you

are supposed to need Level III care, who walk in and out daily - who could

easily be placed in their own home or in homes for special care.

We hear about people who are in hospital for prolonged time,

taking up hospital beds simply because there is no other place to put them. We

hear about private entrepreneurs who want to start private boarding homes, or

homes for special care, in areas of the Province where there are none, who are

being told: I am sorry, we do not need any more of these homes because we have

too many already and we have x-number of beds that are not taken up.

Now that is changing, I understand, and rightly so, because

the decision was being based upon the number of homes, the number of empty beds,

and people saying: Well how can we create more homes when we have empty beds?

What they were forgetting is the location of the empty bed. I notice the

Minister of Health nodding his head, so I think he agrees with me on this - the

location of the homes, number one; the type of homes and how good they were; and

also the fact that people who lived in geographic areas of the Province where

they had neither home near their place, were expected to send their sick

relatives, friends, or parents - whatever the case might be - for hundreds of

miles sometimes just because somebody in another area of the Province had a

vacant bed.

That is unacceptable, and with proper identification and good

field surveys - now I will say a little bit more about this as the evening

progresses, when I get back to this the second, third, or fourth time - we will

find that in many parts of the Province we do not have homes to take care of our

elderly, yet we have a lineup of people trying to find a place to go. Many of

them are then put in hospitals or nursing homes, taking up beds that they really

do not need, but simply because there is not a more suitable level of care

provided for them.

One of the ideal -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Mr. Chairman, it is extremely hard to speak

above the noise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member has requested silence.

MR. HEARN: One aim, I guess, of the department over the

last few years, is to try to keep as many people in their own homes as possible.

This is a laudable decision where it is possible and practical, but somewhere

along the line I think lines have to be drawn there also. They say: Oh, it is

extremely cheap if people stay in their own home and we have a nurse drop in

every now and then and check. That is possible if we have a good nursing service

throughout the Province.

An experiment that they started recently on the southern

shore is the type that certainly could work in many areas of the Province, where

instead of having a doctor run up his medicare bills by trying to cover all

bases - serving his clinic and trying to cover every nook and cranny in his

geographic area - we have a number of nurses, assisted by nursing assistants and

so on, who look after the needs - the minor needs - of a lot of people who need

just a semblance of health care. This can be done rather cheaply and

efficiently; but sometimes when we keep people in their own home, if they get

beyond the degree of self help, where they need twenty-four hour coverage, what

we find is that this is extremely expensive because we have three or four people

who are working full-time, looking after one individual. It is much more

practical, and certainly a lot cheaper, to have these people placed in homes for

special care.

One of the concerns that we always have when we talk about

boards and directors and everybody else, is the decision making process as it

relates in placement - who goes where. It is not always a clear-cut decision.

Somebody who needs year round, or day round, I suppose, care, certainly has to

be placed in a hospital or a nursing home, if they need nursing care around the

clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEARN: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I will come back.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman wants to

continue, we have no -

MR. HEARN: I will get back to it.

MR. FUREY: You will get back to it? Some time between

(inaudible).

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: He will continue when he is ready. He

will have plenty of opportunity to speak to this Bill 46,

An Act Respecting The

Licensing And Inspection Of Health And Social Agencies.

This Act would repeal the Welfare Institutions Act. This is

the Act that sometime in the middle of the night last Thursday we were talking

about changing the Welfare Institutions Act to change the Minister of Social

Services to the Minister of Health. We haven't got that changed, that Bill,

whatever the Bill number was, I can't remember now. We don't have it in place

yet. It's not even passed legislation, approved legislation in this House of

Assembly. When what we're doing now with this Act is going to repeal the Welfare

Institutions Act. If that doesn't show poor planning on behalf of this

government I guess nothing else will.

If we have legislation on the books to repeal the Welfare

Institutions Act why are we wasting the time of this House of Assembly in

changing the Welfare Institutions Act before we - changing the minister's name

in the Welfare Institutions Act from the Minister of Social Services to the

Minister of Health. Just a silly waste of time in causing this House of Assembly

to use up the time. For no reason at all. It's just another frivolous piece of

legislation that the government has on the paper.

To say a few words on this Act. I notice that this Act will

put in place a director of the Act. I don't know if this is a reorganization of

some department that's in the Department of Health already. I would imagine - I

know now that there is some licensing agency in the Department of Health now for

licensing senior citizens homes, or home.... I forget the exact name of them

now, but that's what - there is a licensing board in place now to licence some

of the retirement homes that we have, the private homes. There is a director of

that board around.

I don't know if this legislation is just a reorganization of

what's presently in existence in the Department of Health, or is it setting up a

new bureaucracy, a new set of regulations to enforce with the different agencies

and different homes around the Province. Or has it any affect on the boarding

homes that are presently in the Province? Does it have any affect on the new

regional health care boards that we're going to set up in the Province? Is it

going to work in conjunction with the health care boards so that they can keep

an eye on what institutions are governed by the health care boards in the

regions of the city? Not only the city but of the whole Province. Or is it a

completely new board that will set up its own bureaucracy and its own

regulations?

We have had quite a bit of improvement in the licensing and

inspection of senior citizens homes in this Province over the last years. I

remember some time just before I became the Member for the district of Kilbride

we had a very serious fire in my district in one of these senior citizen homes.

Because of an inadequate housing, inadequate facility that the senior citizens

were in, we had quite a loss of life in the Chafe nursing home fire some years

ago. I don't know if this board will be dealing with that type of situation, to

make sure that the homes that we have in existence now are up to scratch and

that the present regulations are enforced.

I notice here that the Day Care and Homemaker Services Act

will come under this Act somehow in

Section 10. That will be a part of this Act.

So I guess the director and his staff - it doesn't say how many staff or

inspectors he will have, which I find to be - I guess you wouldn't put it in an

act. But it says that he should have a reasonable amount of staff to carry out

the inspection duties. The problem we are having now with inspections in the

whole of the system, the whole of the government system is that because of

government cutbacks, our inspection staff is being hampered in many departments

not only in the Department of Health, so it is useless for us to pass this

legislation whether it is good or bad, it is useless for us to pass this unless

the minister can provide the adequate staff and inspections for the director to

get on with his duties.

I know of cases now where inspectors in the Crown lands

division of the Department of Environment and Lands, because of the way the

government has operated its car pool, the vehicles that they have available to

them are in such bad shape, in such a state of disrepair that they cannot take

them on the highways, so the Crown lands inspectors who are working in the

eastern and central regions of the Province, are unable to go out and do their

inspections on a timely basis when they have requests from people to go out and

have inspections done.

Mr. Chairman, I know that is a fact in Crown lands and I know

it is a fact in the Department of Forestry where, some of the forestry officers

who have to get out from time to time, to check the forests to see if people

with permits are obeying the permits they have and do these inspections. I know

in one region here, in the eastern region there are two inspectors; one covers

the western end of his region and the other covers the eastern end of the

region, but if the person who is covering the western end of his region has to

do an inspection, he has to take the pickup that day and go out and do whatever

inspections he has, and the person who has the responsibilities for the eastern

region in the Department of Forestry, has to sit in the office all day and wait

until the vehicle comes back, because they do not have two vehicles to be able

to go out and carry out their jobs.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if the inspectors associated with this

legislation are going to have the same type of restrictions placed on them, it

is better that we forget the legislation and not pass it at all. The inspectors

who will be hired on, dealing with this legislation will have to be given the

proper equipment to go and do their jobs, or they will not be able to carry out

any of the duties that are assigned to them in this

section 14 (1) and

section

14 (2) of the act.

The act also makes provisions for an appeal board. It is good

to see that we have an appeal board in the process. I believe that government

should have appeal boards in all of their processes so that if someone is

grieved when they are trying to get through bureaucracy they will have at least

independent people to go to and make an independent decision on whatever the

grievance is, but what happens in most government systems that I see, we set up

an appeal board alright but it is almost like workers compensation appeal. You

go in and you make a presentation or you put in your claim or whatever you have

to do within the system, you are grieved and you cannot get your way so you want

to appeal it. What happens in quite a few government systems is that you go back

to the same people to do the appeal, the same people who made the original

decision are also doing the appeal, so what chance do you have of getting your

appeal heard if they disagreed with you in the first place?

I do not know what reason unless you did not give them all

the information the first time, but most likely if a person is looking to have

something done they will give all the information that they can find in the

first place to get it done so, Mr. Chairman, I hope the appeal system that is

set up under

section 17 of this legislation will be somewhat independent and be

able to get on with their appeals and get the feeling at least that they will be

able to have an independent hearing of whatever grievance they might have, so,

Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear the minister make some remarks (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you Chairperson.

I will gladly give my colleague from Kilbride leave to

elaborate on his remarks, but he indicates that he will wait for another turn.

Chairperson, this bill,

An Act Respecting The Licensing And

Inspection of Health And Social Agencies, is a very important piece of

legislation. When we think about our demographics, the characteristics of our

population and the projections of age groupings and requirements for community

support and health care, we can see that this act may have an even greater

significance in years to come from what it has today.

Chairperson, we have now a larger number of elderly people

than we have had before and the percentage of senior citizens is increasing. By

the time the so-called baby boomers, those of us who were born between 1945 and

1960, become seniors the percentage of the population in that senior category

will be very high indeed, high relative to the total population and in

comparison to the people of regular working age who are generating income to

contribute to the care and support of the elderly people.

The member for Port de Grave seems to display a keen interest

in this matter. He must be casting his thoughts to a few years in the future

when he may be a recipient of the services which are the subject of this

legislation.

Chairperson, this bill, while being an important measure, is

the same as health legislation we examined in Committee early Friday morning.

When I say early Friday morning, I mean very early Friday morning. I believe it

was between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. that we had a committee

clause-by-clause analysis of an amendment to the Department of Health Act, which

empowers the Cabinet to set up regional community health boards. The same as

that, Chairperson, this is important legislation, but it lacks specifics.

This act gives to the Cabinet the power to make the decisions

that count. This bill does have more substance than the other bill, but it is by

no means a full shell either. Chairperson, the bill purports to put in place a

legal framework for what are called health and social agencies. So the

definition of health and social agency is central to the meaning of the bill,

but we find that the definition is so vague that after reading it a person is

left wondering what really is to be the ambit of the legislation. It all comes

down to what the Cabinet may put in regulations.

The Cabinet, as we all know, is the political branch of the

government which meets in secret with the Premier calling the shots and, for the

last few months, his right hand man, the Government House Leader having some

influence. Chairperson, the other so-called Cabinet Ministers really don't have

any impact on what goes on in these secret Cabinet meetings when regulations,

such as the regulations that would be permitted under this bill, are made.

Now, health and social agency is defined in Clause 2 (

g) as

meaning a residential facility, defined in the regulations, including a nursing

home or a residential facility, defined in the regulations, or other residential

or non-residential facilities prescribed by the regulations. Or it may mean a

service prescribed by - guess what? -regulation, conducted or operated by a

person or agency, and which is used in whole or in part to maximize a person's

functional independence.

Chairperson, this is a very vague definition of health and

social agency. Basically, it can mean whatever the Cabinet, from one week to the

next, may decide it should mean. It may mean a lot, it may mean a little. The

only precision at all is nursing home. A health and social agency definitely

means a nursing home where care is provided to persons who are disabled to a

degree where they must have skilled twenty-four hour nursing and continuous

medical supervision but do not require all the facilities of an acute care

hospital. It definitely means a nursing home and it may mean a variety of other

accommodations, services and supports. It may mean a service designed partly to

maximize a person's functional independence so I assume that the Cabinet by

regulation may define health and social agency to mean a group home for

developmentally delayed people although now those facilities are regulated by

the Department of Social Services.

Perhaps one of the ministers, the Ministers of Health and

Social Services are both sitting opposite, perhaps one or both of the ministers

can explain which type of facilities, accommodations, or services will fall

within the definition of this act and which will be regulated by the Department

of Social Services. This is a health act. The bill defines the responsible

department as the Department of Health and the minister as the Minister of

Health. This is a health measure but yet it purports to put in place a legal

framework for health and social agencies.

My first question is which agencies, in the opinion of the

ministers opposite, will the Cabinet from time to time, define as coming under

this act, and is the definition not too vague? Would we not be better served if

more precision is put in the bill? Chairperson, the bill goes on to give wide

sweeping powers to a Department of Health official called the director. The

director is given, even by Clause 5 (2) the power to suspend a licence where he

or she thinks it is in the best interest of the residents to do so.

Then we proceed to Clause 7 where a board is established.

Clause 7 establishes the Health and Social Agencies Board. Now, Chairperson, the

bill is rather vague about what the board's powers are, what it is suppose to

do, what it is mandated to do. There is a statement in Clause 8 saying that the

board is to advise the minister so advising seems to be the only clear cut

power, if you can call advising a power at all. Clause 8 says the board shall

report to and advise the minister on the application of this act and the

regulations, and on other matters in relation to this act and the regulations

that may be assigned to the board by the minister.

It appears as though the board does not get to do anything

worth while unless the minister asks it to do something but when we read on in

Clause 10 we see that licences are to be issued by the board. Then in Clause 11

the board shall issue a licence or a conditional licence to a person to conduct

and operate a health and social agency where the board is satisfied of a number

of factors. So, issuing licences is a definite power that is given to the board

and really the only meaningful responsibility other than advising the minister

on whatever the minister may ask the board to comment upon. Chairperson, the act

goes on to deal with the procedure for licensing, for inspection and licensing,

and then to appeal decisions that people are not satisfied with. Either

appealing a decision or order of the director or of the board and all those

comments bear scrutiny. Now, at the very end we have a delayed proclamation

provision, the final clause of the Bill says that the Act does not come into

force until a day proclaimed by the Cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: No, I do not know why, I say to the Junior

Government House Leader. I would be glad to yield to him for a minute or two for

him -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I am not insulting the minister.

I am not insulting the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

MS. VERGE: Oh, thank you, Chairperson.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared also to yield to

the Acting Government House Leader if he wishes to explain that point. I am also

prepared to yield to the Acting Government House Leader if he wishes to - the

Deputy House Leader if he wishes to explain that point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am told that the

Minister of Health is taki