December

19, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 79

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

The hon. the Member for Kilbride on a point of order.

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

I rise today to speak in respect of the incidents of Thursday

past. As the record shows, on Thursday past I made remarks which Your Honour

deemed to be unparliamentary. Your Honour asked me to withdraw those remarks and

I declined. As is customary when a member declines to withdraw an

unparliamentary remark, Your Honour named me and asked that I remove myself from

the House, but I did not leave. Neither did I leave when Your Honour asked the

officers of the House to escort me outside.

Upon reflection, Mr. Speaker, it was

an act of frustration.

On Thursday past I should have accepted the decision of Your Honour in imposing

the penalty for declining to withdraw a remark deemed unparliamentary, and I

should have removed myself forthwith from the House of Assembly.

I realize, as all members do, that a Parliament, to function

effectively, must establish for itself certain rules, and those rules must be

accepted and adhered to by members. If those rules are breached without penalty,

or if the penalties are disregarded, then the integrity of the Parliament itself

is undermined and parliamentary democracy suffers as a consequence.

For declining to accept the ruling of Your Honour on Thursday

that I remove myself from the House, Mr. Speaker, I today apologize

unequivocally to all members, to all hon. members, to Your Honour, and indeed to

the officers of the House. My actions did not mean to cause an unprecedented

situation.

Since it is a matter of question whether I indeed served the

one day suspension imposed by Your Honour on Thursday, and since I want to

eliminate doubt in that regard and ensure the penalty imposed is served, I will,

with Your Honour's respect, serve my one day suspension today.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as the person who moved yesterday

a motion that, after putting forth a case that I believe was a breach of

privilege, let me again reiterate to the Member for Kilbride and to all members

of this House that I have no desire to do anything that would in any way

personally affect either the Member for Kilbride or any other member of this

Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I should say with your Honour's

permission, having put forward a case of breach of privilege, now that the hon.

member has done what I asked to have done in my motion, I accept and I would

ask, Your Honour, if I could drop the case. I think it has been established that

the rules of this House, the primacy of the rules of this House are still

functioning and they have been enforced and the member, I believe, has done the

honourable thing. I would ask that it be put to rest and that the hon. member be

granted and be regarded in the same way as any other member of this Legislature.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to commend the Member for Fogo for having brought

before the House the question of privilege. I think all hon. members, including

the Member for Kilbride, recognized as a valid question of privilege an

importance for all members of this House now and in the future. I commend also

the Member for Kilbride in recognizing that that was the case and for doing the

right thing today in apologizing to the House and to hon. members for failing to

uphold the traditions of parliamentary democracy. I think that his actions today

have restored that honour to himself and to all hon. members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Fogo has asked that his

point of privilege be withdrawn because the hon. Member for Kilbride has now met

the conditions under which the debate would have proceeded had the Chair had an

opportunity to rule and had the Chair ruled that it was a prima facie case. I

understand that we would probably need the consent of the House for the hon.

member to withdraw that point of privilege. I understand that that is what we

have at this point in time, that the hon. member's point of privilege is now

withdrawn. Is that the understanding?

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could I would move that that

be the case. We see a consensus in this House to withdraw the point of privilege

at this point since we have established that the primacy rules of this House

have been enforced.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the consent that it be withdrawn?

Okay, the point of privilege is withdrawn. We have an agreement on that. The

Chair would like to say that this event of the last week certainly was not an

event that we take a great deal of pride in, that it is now dealt with fully and

the integrity of the institution of Parliament has been preserved. It has been

resolved in a satisfactory manner and hopefully we have all learned that we

must, at all costs, preserve and respect the integrity and the dignity of the

Parliament that we serve.

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier about the federal

government's plans to make major changes to unemployment insurance. These plans

will have a profound affect on Newfoundland and Labrador; no province of Canada

will be affected in a more significant way than ours. Most people who have

looked at the details of the announced plans believe the net effect will be

significant economic loss and disruption for this Province, yet the Premier of

the Province still has not re-acted publicly to the changes.

I ask the Premier once again, today, what is your

government's analysis of the federal government's proposals to change UI and

replace it with EI, and will you table your government's analysis?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I share the view that it will

have a very substantial impact on this Province, that's the general analysis.

The specific analysis was supposed to have been completed on Friday. I don't

have it as yet; it has not been delivered to me. I can't say that it is not

completed at this moment, maybe it is, maybe it is on the way to my office right

now, but the original date for the completion of it was estimated to have been

Friday. I don't have it as yet.

As a result, I wrote the Prime Minister last week. I told him

of the Province's concerns, told him of what we thought the level of impact

might be and asked for an appropriate meeting at an early opportunity with the

Prime Minister and other ministers concerned. I hope that that meeting will be

forthcoming and at that time I will be able to set forth clearly to the Prime

Minister, not alone the impact of the unemployment insurance changes, but the

combined impact of the unemployment insurance changes together with the changes

in federal transfers, together with the phasedown of TAGS and the impact that

that is going to have; together with the failure thus far of the federal

government to respond effectively to the economic consequences of the closure of

the groundfish fishery. A combination of all of these things has the potential

for an extremely substantial impact. We are doing a complete assessment not

alone of the impact of the UI changes, but of the impact of the combining of all

of these things at this particular time. That has not been completed, or at

least has not been put on my desk. Maybe it is completed by now. It should be

sort of any hour or any day now, and when I do have it I have undertaken first

to deliver it to the Prime Minister. Once that is done I will let the people of

the Province know the impact.

My concern, and I have let this be known to the Prime

Minister, is that it will so substantially impact upon our economy on the whole

that government will have difficulty dealing with the fiscal and financial

consequences of it, and still maintain an acceptable level of public services,

and that there will also be difficulty for our people finding job opportunities

in the Province. So all of these things must be dealt with in an effective way.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Everyone knew for weeks in advance that the Federal

Government was going to be announcing major changes to unemployment insurance.

Other Premiers, such as Frank McKenna of New Brunswick, were fast off the mark

in commenting on the impact of the changes on their provinces. Why is the

Premier of this Province so slow in responding and assessing the impact of the

UI-EI conversion together with the cumulative effect of other Federal Government

changes?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, just the opposite it true. In

fact the lead came from this Province. They were done in discussions directly

with the Federal Government and directly with Mr. Tobin. Mr. Tobin then

discussed them subsequently with Premier McKenna, with Premier Savage and

others. In fact, the lead did not come from the source that the hon. member

thinks at all, but we do work co-operatively with the other Atlantic Provinces,

and it was the action that I took that caused the meeting to take place with the

four Atlantic Premiers. That was the action that was initiated here. Now, I

might not make a big splash about it in the papers to get some kind of press

coverage for it. I don't operate that way. I operate in a more effective way.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How does the Premier explain the contradiction between his

saying in answer to my first question that he has not yet assessed the

consequences of the UI reform, with his later claim that he was somehow in the

forefront of the fight of the Atlantic Provinces Premiers. I ask the Premier:

when is he going to begin co-operating with the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, the people he is supposed to be representing as Premier of the

Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is no contradiction, it is

completely consistent with the answer I gave, and let me spell it out in very

simple plain terms so the member will understand.

I stood in the House just a moment ago and said, I shared the

view of the member. My preliminary assessment of it led me to this conclusion

that it would have this very significant impact. The member nodded. It was on

the basis of that that I took the action. Now, the detailed assessment is still

in the process of being completed. But it was on the basis of the initial

reaction that I just three minutes ago explained to the hon. member, which she

very conveniently overlooked.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your initial reaction was that it was

marvellous.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the Member for St. John's East Extern is correct. The

Premier's initial reaction to the UI reforms after his meeting with the Maritime

Premiers in Ottawa is that the changes would be marvellous.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier the most important

question. How does the Premier propose to make up the loss that is going to

result from the UI reforms? How does the government plan to avoid the disruption

and the devastating consequences that several economists are predicting for this

Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, when the assessment is

complete, the government will disclose its proposal for the way in which we deal

with it. Primarily it will be dealt with by the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board when the minister delivers the Budget. That is the normal course. If there

is a need to make a statement before the minister delivers the Budget, then the

government will do that. That is the normal way of doing it.

Now, before I sit down, let me say again: I don't know

whether the member is doing this deliberately or not, but she knows, and she

knows that I've explained to this House before, that I made no such statement

about the proposal being marvellous. I dealt with a particular aspect of it, and

I refer the hon. member to Hansard at page 2296 for a full explanation of it. To

continue making this misrepresentation is quite unacceptable in any

parliamentary process, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier that time is running out on this

Provincial Government. Some of the UI reforms require Provincial Government

initiative right away. There is no time to waste. Let me ask the Premier about

the Federal Government transfer of responsibility for training to the Province,

about the end of Federal Government purchases of Manpower seats from public and

private institutions, about the end of fee-payer type extensions of UI for

people who are taking training. What does the Provincial Government propose to

put in place as a substitute for the future? What are the goals of the

Provincial Government for a federal-provincial agreement for skills, grants and

loans or some new fancy student aid which the Federal Government is proposing?

What is the Premier going to be offering students in this Province come

September?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The preliminary assessment of the federal

proposal indicates they are going to change the direction in which they have

been going primarily, I think, as a result of the reaction of Quebec to the fact

that the course that the federal government has been following in the past has

been effectively taking over a matter that was provincial jurisdiction; and it

was primarily, I think, to respond to that that they developed the approach that

they did.

Their new approach will see them providing funding directly

to individuals so that the individual could go, then, to the provincially run

institute, or to a privately run educational or training institution, and buy

the services in the same way that a student would go to vocational school or to

university or any post-secondary institution now. That is the process, as I

understand, that they intend to do. Now, the bill is not through Parliament yet.

It is not through committee stage, and it has not been finalized, but so far as

I know that is what they propose to do.

Now what is the probable impact of that on the Province?

Well, we haven't got the full, completed assessment. The Minister of Education

can tell you, when the assessment is complete, the extent to which it is likely

to see an increase in activity at provincially run schools with the individuals

making the arrangements directly because the funding is going directly from the

federal government to the individuals either by way of loans or grants or

whatever it may be for training. I think they may well be going in that

direction, but I do not know all the details of it yet.

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

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

for the Minister of Health.

I have been researching the subject of long-term care for

many months, and as a matter of fact I had someone call the Agnew Peckham

consultants in Toronto and ask them where they got the recommendations for the

standards in long-term care that are included in the report that they issued on

behalf of nursing homes and funded by this government. They said it came from

Newfoundland's Department of Health's own 1990 guidelines in a booklet called

Long-Term Care Planning and Functional Programming Guidelines .

Now, the minister keeps referring to an almost ten-year old

Osborne report on long-term care. We have a rapidly aging population, and many

of the elderly today in homes are being warehoused in substandard and antiquated

homes which were never intended nor built to serve as nursing homes.

Now, the minister issued a challenge to me on TV last night,

and on radio this morning, regarding -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - to show him one substandard bed in a

nursing home in this city.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister: I

accept that challenge, and I ask the minister if he will come with me today, if

we can go on a tour of the nursing homes identified as substandard and obsolete,

and I will show him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am glad the hon. member asked the question because it gives

me an opportunity to provide some factual information to the House and to the

people of the Province, particularly the seniors, whose fears must have been

stimulated yesterday and raised, I guess, as a result of the grossly inaccurate

information that the hon. member presented both to the press and to the members

of this House. I think I should set the record straight by answering the

question this way.

The hon. member yesterday indicated that there were 518

people on a waiting list for long-term care admissions in St. John's. The hon.

member further alleged, Mr. Speaker, that we had substandard nursing home beds

in the health care system in this Province. To the latter point, let me say this

to the hon. member again. Every nursing home in this Province meets nationally

accepted and required accreditation standards. There is not today to my

knowledge as Minister of Health one substandard bed within the health care

system of this Province. If there is one I would ask the hon. member to again

identify it. Never mind his grandstanding and going on tours, that proves

nothing. Let him give me the information that refutes what I am saying and I

will deal with it.

As to the actual number who are waiting for admissions to

nursing homes in the Province, the latest information I have from the community

health, the St. John's region, assessment and placement committee is this. There

are a total of 183 people waiting for admissions to either levels one, two or

three care homes in this region as of November 29. Of that number, thirty-seven

are people from outside of the region. That leaves us with 146 people waiting

for admissions to homes. Of that number, only seventy-five are of the level

three category or higher that requires factual and actual admission to a nursing

home. The rest are either level one or level two, which could be taken care of

in a personal care home.

I think it is a gross insult to the people of this Province

that the hon. member would make such unfounded and grossly inaccurate

allegations regarding the health care system of this Province. If he has any

decency and respect for the Chamber and for himself he would ask that a motion

be put that the word "honourable" be taken from his name.

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

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will take his

departmental guidelines and I will visit them. Agnew Peckham consultants

informed me that they are from the department - I have the guidelines. We can go

visit and we can prove for ourselves, I say to the minister. I will show him

where they are in each one of the homes! That is what I tell the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister has broken that list down into

a sub-category. I will provide this list for anybody who wants it, the meeting

that you chaired with two other ministers and with your Deputy Minister,

Assistant Deputy Minister, and director in the community health board, with 512

names.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister - another point of

inaccuracy, Mr. Speaker. You stated that medically discharged elderly are only

in hospitals for a short duration before being placed. I have information, I say

to the minister, I -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are now into Question Period, we are not into a debate.

The hon. member is on a supplementary and supplementaries should require no

preamble. I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In light of the

information I have which reveals that there are people in acute care beds for

several months, some back for twenty-three months, and I have names I say to the

minister, I now challenge the minister to prove me right by tabling in this

House not the names but the dates on which they were medically discharged and

the dates on which they were admitted into nursing homes, and we will see who is

correct.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if there was a

question, but if there was it was with respect to the status of medically

discharged people within the health care system.

Let me tell him first of all, as he knows I think, that

medically discharged people are people who are discharged from a hospital but

who are waiting to be conveyed either to a long-term care situation or to a

personal care home or, in fact, back to their community where they came from in

their own residence. Medically discharged beds are a part of the health care

system. They are a part of the long-term care system if you like, to the extent

that they exist in hospitals for a period of time in that transitional period. I

am not sure really, what the hon. member is really trying to get at when he

talks about medically discharged people. We have people, Mr. Speaker, in

hospitals, if you classify for instance, the Notre Dame Hospital in Twillingate

as a hospital, we have people who will be there for years because we have

converted part of that facility to long-term care purposes. The same thing

applies in the Curtis Memorial Hospital in Springdale, and the same thing to

some extent, at the Cross Memorial Hospital in Clarenville, so the hon. member

is trying to make a point where there is no point of validity or of substance.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is trying to play politics with a definition.

Medically discharged, is a person whose physician has

indicated is medically discharged from an acute care institution and are waiting

to go home or to be placed in a nursing home.

Now I say to the minister, you have used another method to

eliminate the practice of admitting those people into emergency departments by

blocking their admission through emergency departments, I say to the minister.

You are not allowing these people in because -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - when they are medically discharged, there

is no place to put them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question, he is on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: In light of what's

happening with specialists at emergency departments telling people, if they

don't have a heart attack, a brain tumour or are in danger of dying - and I have

a specialist who said that and his name - what is the minister going to do now

to be able to give the proper care to those people who go to emergency

departments and elsewhere, who need that care?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion is that

there is now a difficulty somehow in our emergency departments that's linked

with long-term care. A quantum leap to say the least, if we could make the

connection at all.

There is, to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, no problem, no

difficulty in terms of access or service in any emergency or outpatients

department in any of the hospitals that we have in the health care system, and I

would again say to the hon. member: if he knows of one situation, one person who

was inappropriately dealt with at an emergency department, if he knows of one,

that is one too many and I am not happy about that, but if he knows of just one,

let him bring the name and the circumstance forward and this government would be

the first to take its responsibility and insure that it is handled in a fit and

proper manner.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Premier.

There has been much hype in the last year or so, Mr. Speaker,

with regards to the mineral find in Labrador, namely Voisey's Bay and as of late

a request has been made by Abitibi-Price with regards to moving in to Labrador

to try to harvest some of the forest potential in that particular area.

One of the stumbling blocks, Mr. Speaker, as everybody in

this Province knows and the rest of Canada, is the deal and sometimes a

settlement with regards to the aboriginal groups in the area namely, the Innu,

Inuit and lately a new group called the Metis. Could the Premier inform the

House today and the people of the Province, how negotiations are progressing

with regards to land claims with those particular people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we had made a good deal of

progress a couple years or so ago with the land claims with the Labrador Inuit

Association and we put in place a speeded up process and as a result of that,

the LIA presented a fairly broad and all-encompassing claim to the government.

The government responded to that claim and went back and stated its position.

That had the effect of narrowing the gap considerably; that's not to say there

is agreement between the two parties, there is not at this moment, but we at

least know what can be taken off the table.

Now the federal government was not a party to that, so for

about nearly a year after the Province responded to that, which I think was in

October or November of 1993 I believe - The Member for Torngat Mountains is not

in his seat at the moment, he could confirm that date - I think it was about

October 1993 that the government responded.

After that, the claim languished and really didn't make very

much more progress for two reasons, one of which was, the Province and the LIA

were not of one mind on how to proceed from there, but primarily the federal

government still had not come on board. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, there has

been a revised position.

The federal government is now a participant. The Province and

the LIA are arranging meetings and we will be proceeding to further detailed

discussions fairly soon. I don't know the immediate detail right now but I can

get it and give it to the hon. member if he wishes.

With respect to the Innu, they did not accept our proposal

for a speeded up claim and they resisted any efforts. There was a good deal of

confrontation between the Province and the Innu which took a variety of forms

over a two or three year period. More recently the Innu have changed their

approach and they have asked for a speeded up approach. As a result, we entered

into negotiations with representatives of the Innu over the course of the summer

and I believe - I am just trying to remember the date, I don't know whether it

was August? No, it was later then August - it was sometime this fall we signed a

framework agreement with the Innu to start detailed land claims negotiations and

set out the framework within which those negotiations would proceed. That

agreement has been initialled by the negotiators for both parties and is now

before the Innu for their formal approbation and before the provincial

government for its formal approbation but the negotiators have signed off on it

and have initialled it.

With respect to the third group to which the hon. member

referred, the Metis, I have to tell you that the Province does not recognize

that the Metis have any basis for aboriginal claim in this Province. The only

two aboriginal groups that we believe have any basis for claim in the Province

are the Inuit of Labrador and the Innu of Labrador. Nobody else has a basis for

an aboriginal claim as such because no other group is separately aboriginal to

this Province. There are a group of people who have either Inuit or Innu

ancestry or they may indeed have some aboriginal ancestry but who may have

originated in another province that are amongst the people that identify

themselves as Metis in Labrador. They have no basis for an aboriginal claim in

this Province and the government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, I understand it is a bit lengthy but

it was an all encompassing question so with leave I will just clue it up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

PREMIER WELLS: The only other group that has attempted to

present an aboriginal claim are the Micmac of Conne River and they, as most hon.

members realize, are not aboriginal to this Province. They are aboriginal to

Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island but they probably - nobody

knows with absolute certainty - they probably came to this Province some time

after European occupation of the Province started. So there is no basis for an

aboriginal claim. The former government agreed to create the reserve in Conne

River primarily because the vast majority were - I guess it is probably not

accurate to say they created the reserve - they transferred an area of land to

the federal government and the federal government took the land and made it a

reserve. The Province knew what it was doing at the time and knew what the

federal government was going to do with the land and they made it a reserve but

that is not a basis for establishing an aboriginal claim in the Province. The

only two we are dealing with are the LIA and the Innu.

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

Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the

Premier then agree that if there is no land claim settlement with either the

Innu or the Inuit - I guess both those aboriginal groups within the next year,

two at the most, although Diamond Fields has said that they are making a

decision next year on where a smelter is going to go, and possible development

in the Year 2000 or 2001. The one that comes to mind, as of late, is the

proposal by Abitibi - Price, especially as it pertains to the Stephenville Mill.

Would the Premier not agree that if there is no agreement, land claims

settlement within the next year to eighteen months, that this would be

detrimental to the mill in Stephenville?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with that

proposition. You see the government has a responsibility to provide for the

orderly, rationale, ongoing of economic activity in the Province. Now it is our

sincere wish that we have a resolution of aboriginal land claims as quickly as

possible so as to avoid any possible conflict but the government simply cannot

hold up economic development, economic land or economic resource use for the

benefit of the entire Province, on the basis that an aboriginal group says we

will not agree to this being done unless we get the land claim that we want. We

cannot operate that way and we will not operate that way but I do agree with the

hon. member, that it would be a lot easier to deal with resource management

issues once the aboriginal claims are resolved, so it is government's desire to

try to resolve them as quickly as possible for that reason, but also by reason

of the fact that, in fairness to the aboriginal people, we should move as

expeditiously as we possibly can to address their fair claims.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, one of the bills before the

House now, the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act outlines, especially for mining

companies in the Province, and more specifically as it pertains to Voisey's Bay,

some of the conditions, the monetary conditions, tax rebates and a number of

other tax structures that would have to be met by those companies if that mine

went into production tomorrow. I ask the Premier: If there were a settlement

tomorrow, or probably a month or so from now, depending on whether this goes

through the House this week or not, based on this structure it is only natural

to assume that in that land claim settlement there would be a monetary

settlement involved and included in that for the aboriginal people. Who would

pay for this? Would it be the Province, the mining companies, the Federal

Government, or a combination of all three? And if that is the case, then would

this not mean that this legislation would then be outdated? The money has to

come from somewhere. Would the Premier tell the House where?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The issue has nothing whatsoever to do

with this legislation, or this legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with the

issue. There is no relationship or interconnection between the two, or the

taxation has nothing to do with the issue. There is no interrelationship between

the two.

We have taken the position, on behalf of the Province, that

in terms of land claims, the Government of the Province will work co-operatively

with the Federal Government and with the aboriginal people to try to work out

the fairest land claim we possibly can, but we have to remember that as far as

the laws of this Province are concerned, and the practices of this Province are

concerned, every citizen is the equal of every other. You are no better, you

have no greater rights, or no lesser rights, because you are aboriginal, you are

you may speak. We treat all of our citizens on precisely the same basis, and

that has been our practice for 400 years. There has never been any

differentiation with the aboriginal people.

But, under the Constitution, under

Section 92-24, the Federal

Government has direct responsibility and jurisdiction with respect to Indians

and lands reserved for Indians. That gives the Federal Government the

responsibility to deal with this issue, so if there is going to be a special and

privileged arrangement for the aboriginal people in terms of a financial

settlement, that responsibility rests with the Federal Government, and that is

the position we have maintained all along.

Now, when it comes to making land available or providing for

land that could be reserved for the exclusive hunting rights to the land, or use

of it, we have agreed that the Province would put that up without looking for

any compensation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have maintained the position that the Province has no

responsibility for any financial settlement.

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

supplementary.

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

Would the Premier tell the House if he has been approached by

Abitibi-Price to see if there can be some kind of agreement reached, so that

particular company can move into Labrador to salvage some of the timber there?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that we

have been approached by a number of parties, of which Abitibi-Price was one,

that wanted to develop the timber resources of Labrador. Government policy

stated to Abitibi-Price and to the others who made the representation, that we

would like to see the development of those timber resources take place in such a

way that the maximum possible use occurred within the Labrador area where the

timber resources were harvested, and if there was to be conversion to lumber and

so on, that it be done there in Labrador.

This is the approach we have taken, but we also recognize the

need of Abitibi-Price in terms of the long-term future of their mills at

Stephenville and Grand Falls, so we will work co-operatively with Abitibi-Price,

and any others, to try and see they get access to the wood fibre, but our basis

objective is to see that, as much as possible, the development benefit accrues

in the Labrador area where the wood is harvested.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the report of the Social Services

Legislation Review Committee. The Committee has reviewed Bill No. 38,

An Act To

Revise The Law Respecting Limitations, and has approved the bill, subject to

five minor amendments which are attached to our report along with the

appropriate explanatory notes.

Petitions

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to present a

petition on behalf of some -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Not today, I say to the hon. gentleman. I am

not going to be sidetracked by them today either, because this is too important.

Mr. Speaker, I rise -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, do I detect that there is a sense

of `out to get Tulk' today on the other side, or what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be paranoid.

MR. TULK: They have now come from the front benches to

the back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition

on behalf of some 1,000 residents of Fogo Island. I would like to read the

prayer of the petition.

Whereas Fogo Islanders have created an efficient and

effective school system;

whereas the proposed busing changes by the Department

of Education and Training will pose safety concerns for Fogo Island children;

and

whereas the number of students and future attendance will see significant

savings for the public; wherefore

be it resolved that the bus system be kept as

is and changes contemplated by the Provincial Government be not implemented. And

as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I support the prayer of the petition. I have to

advise the House that there are three petitions in one, but I wanted to present

them today because I think we may be getting close to the Christmas recess.

There is a meeting with the Minister of Education and Training, and I want the

House and the minister to know that there are 1,000 people on Fogo Island

requesting his attention.

The first `Whereas', I think, sums up quite clearly what the

Fogo Island school system is all about. It is a school system that eleven years

ago was put together and created a model for all Newfoundland. It is precisely

what we are purporting to try to do with some of the changes to the Constitution

in this Province and in this country. I say, if the whole Province had been so

forward-looking, then we may not even be contemplating the changes that the

Provincial Government are presently contemplating doing on Fogo Island.

The changes are draconian, in that the change as recommended

in the school busing study was to decrease the number of buses operating on Fogo

Island at present from fourteen down to eight - that is almost a 50 per cent

cut. I want to say that it is a rare occasion today in this Province when you

find a Superintendent of Education coming out on the side of the parents and the

public. In this particular case, the Superintendent of Nova Consolidated School

Board, Mr. Jack Waye, has come out on the side of the parents on Fogo Island and

has asked the Provincial Government not to implement the suggestions that are

being put forward by the school busing report. Here is what he says, and here is

the reason he says it, and I think he sums it up quite well. In his letter to

Dr. Len Williams on December 7, Mr. Jack Waye said:

The issue of safety and the welfare of children has come

forward as the main concerns about the proposed reduction of the Fogo Island

busing fleet from fourteen to eight buses. The school on Fogo Island is situated

in the centre of the island away from everything else. All students are bused to

school in the morning and bused home in the afternoon. There is no noon hour

busing except for Kindergarten students.

Here is the key, Mr. Speaker: Fogo Island's weather is

extremely unpredictable and winter storms can and do come on rapidly. This has

occurred in the past and will no doubt happen again. The removal of six buses

from the fleet will take away our ability to have all students bused home at the

same time. Having to wait up to one hour for buses to make double runs will

increase the likelihood that half the student body, in the event of a storm,

will be stranded at the school. Compounding this is the fact that there is

generally a power outage during a storm. There was one for fifteen hours this

past weekend. So a situation could exist where 300 to 400 students would be

stranded at the school with no light and no heat. This, obviously, is the worst

possible scenario, but given our past experiences the potential of it happening

is very great.

He then goes on to say Fogo Island is unique in that it has

had a joint services school system for many years. In the sixties and seventies

twelve to fifteen schools were in operation; however, the people of Fogo Island

have co-operated, and at present a single joint services school complex serves

the whole island. There is a feeling that the Fogo Island system is a model of

efficiency, and that to attempt to extract further efficiencies will cause undue

hardships for children and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the minister and the government to

pay particular attention. I know that the government has to save money. I don't

think there is anybody in Newfoundland doubts that is the case, that you have to

save money wherever it is possible to save it, but I would urge the Minister of

Education, and I will be urging him in the future, and I have to say to him that

I will be supporting the people of Fogo Island in their quest, that he not

extract, as the Superintendent of Education says, anything else from the people

of Fogo Island at this time.

The other thing that we should keep in mind is that the

population of Fogo Island, because of the downturn in the fishery, is plummeting

- absolutely no doubt about that - and in four or five years, if we keep on the

road that we are on, the reduction in buses will come about naturally; the

reduction requirements of busing in that area will come about naturally. So

there is a process in place which will probably take care of the expenditure, I

say to the Minister of Education and to the government itself.

Mr. Speaker, I say I support the petition, and I would urge

again that the government not implement the changes that are only presently

being contemplated.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to support my friend from Fogo as he presents

this petition. I recognize that the Department of Education is going through a

change, and one that is long overdue, and one that is there to save money, and

they have to try to save money in this era that we are living in; however, what

prompts me to support the petition is the fact that I read the letter that the

Superintendent of Education for Nova Consolidated School Board wrote in support

of this action not being taken.

I had the experience one time a few years ago of going over

to Fogo one beautiful morning in February, on a lovely sunny morning going over

on the ferry, and checking into the hotel and then going back from the centre of

the island, where the school is, back to Fogo to a meeting. In the process of

that meeting, from the time we left to get back, it started to snow when that

meeting opened and we had to cut the meeting short in order that we would get

back in a four-wheel drive vehicle to be able to get back to the centre of the

island to the motel. Otherwise, we were going to be stuck in the town council

office in Fogo all night. So I recognize the viability of what has happened

here, and I recognize that there is a serious problem that can happen, that you

could have children stranded in the centre of that island for a couple of days,

with those winter storms that they talk about that come on so suddenly in Fogo.

As I support this petition I say to the Department of

Education: Have a look at this one. This is, as my friend from Fogo has said,

one where the system... They tried to fix the system in Fogo. It was one that

they amalgamated some years ago. The system is fine tuned. Have a look at some

of the ones that have not done this before you enforce these rules in Fogo. Pay

attention to what those people are saying.

It is with great pleasure that I support this petition.

Thank you.

MR. DECKER: Can I speak to the petition?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister have leave to speak

to the petition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. minister have leave to address the petition?

The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. DECKER: I thank hon. members for giving me leave to

speak to this petition.

First, I want to compliment the Member for Fogo for the

outstanding work he has done for his constituents. You see, the member was not

satisfied to just bring this petition to the House, before it came he met with

me on several occasions and put forward an argument in favour of his

constituents in Fogo, Mr. Speaker. So that deserves to be complimented, unlike I

should say, unlike other members in this House who will remain unnamed, who have

chosen to get up and posture on this issue, Mr. Speaker, rather then coming in a

reasonable way in trying to deal with the issue. So I compliment the hon. member

for bringing it to my attention, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the member and the people of Fogo that this is an

issue that the Department of Education and the government will consider.

However, I have to explain that busing throughout the Province is being

reviewed. In Labrador West, the member already presented some petitions and did

a bit of posturing on it. All throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker, busing is

being reviewed but there are two very important issues that will be borne in

mind as we deal with a reform of busing in the Province. Number one, we have to

always be vigilant of the concern that we have for the children of the Province.

It is absolutely prior, topmost in our minds, that what we do will be in the

interest of the people on Fogo Island, the people in Labrador West, the people

in Goose Bay, the people on the Northern Peninsula. First and foremost, the

interest of the children will be taken into consideration as we deal with

busing. The other matter we have to always be aware of, Mr. Speaker, is the

ability of the Province to pay for the services that we offer. We have to spend

smarter and wiser and these are cliches that now we have been using over the

past number of years, every government in Canada. We have to look at all the

services that we provide and we have to provide them in a way which is

effective, efficient but most importantly, adequate.

So, Mr. Speaker, again, my compliments, my sincere thanks to

the Member for Fogo who brought this matter to my attention. I certainly will be

proud to meet with him and we have arranged a meeting between him and the

deputy. I did not get a request from across the House, Mr. Speaker, for any

meetings to discuss this issue with the district. Instead they got up and wanted

to posture on it instead of dealing with it as reasonable people as all men and

women of goodwill should do, Mr. Speaker. So congratulations to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me pleasure

today to rise here on a petition put forward by 413 people, mostly from the

district of Placentia. The petition reads as such; to the hon. House of Assembly

of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament Assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly

to accept the following prayer;

We the undersigned do hereby ask the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation to undertake the upgrading and paving of

approximately 21 kilometres of road on Route 91 from Southeast Placentia to the

intersection of North Harbour Road, and Route 92 and to upgrade approximately 7

kilometres of road on Route 100-10 from the Argentia Access Road to the

intersection of the Southeast Road, Route 91. We ask the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation to address this matter as in duty bound your

petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, on December 2 of last year I presented a similar

petition to this House. That route from southeast going to the Colinet area,

North Harbour area, was originally a trail going back that long - D'Iberville on

his raids from Placentia to the Southern Shore and St. John's used part of that,

way back in the 17th Century. It was used as a cow path, as a trail up until the

early part of this century when it was upgraded in the 1920s by the provincial

government. It got further improvement and it became a road system when the

Americans came in the early '40s. They also put a road behind Dunville because

of the inclement weather wintertime in Placentia gut. The Americans maintained

this road system up until the early '50s. Since that time it has gotten very

little help from the Province, some upgrading over the years. This area is used

by people who come in from the North Harbour area, hospitals, banking, policing,

it is also used by tourism, people in our own Province who want a shorter loop

instead of going the whole way, probably it is Sunday afternoon. We don't have

to talk about people from away but we are talking about our own. Because I think

in the tourism program a person who travels fifty kilometres further than their

home is considered a tourist. This area is very important, still is important.

The bridge on Placentia Gut is over thirty years old, and if an emergency should

arise in Placentia the way out for people on that side of the Gut is up through

southeast and out of that area.

They also want a Dunville road, Mr. Speaker. It is the

general Protestant graveyard. Two of them. United together. There is the

Anglican and the United. They are there. I was up to a funeral a couple of weeks

ago and I was up to my ankles in mud.

AN HON. MEMBER: He isn't serious, (inaudible)?

MR. CAREEN: I am serious, I say to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation. That area is a well-used road. That area offers an

alternative for people travelling on that part of the Avalon Peninsula. It opens

an access way that is not there now. It gives people a more reasonable way to

get around our particular area of the Avalon. But the hospital, up in the head

of southeast, if a person gets sick they will have to come right down the

pavement in through Placentia, Jerseyside, up through Dunville. If that area was

done - we all know that a minute or two is a difference between a person alive,

sometimes, and in the graveyard. It is very important to those people up in that

area of southeast Placentia that that area be upgraded and paved.

This is more serious than what the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation gives it. Last year he gave us the answer that the

budget wasn't being done. I'm asking the minister, when his budget is being

considered this year, and speaking with his federal counterparts, that they look

at this area being done and being done properly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Don't you talk to your federal people? Don't

you talk about any extra monies? You can't be looking at your own single budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) provincial road.

MR. CAREEN: A provincial road. Yes, and we have seen

federal money coming in for provincial roads too. It is all according to where

you live, Mr. Speaker. I'm saying that this area is important to the people who

live there in emergencies, the people who visit, the hospital and businesses in

the Placentia area, and for all the Placentia area, and people who stretch out

to my colleague's district, the St. Mary's - The Capes area, North Harbour -

Colinet area. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased today to

stand and support the petition put forward by the hon. Member for Placentia as

it relates to a connecting road between the Districts of St. Mary's - The Capes

and Placentia. This road is in both our districts, I would say to the hon.

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and it affects many people from

both our districts.

As the hon. member touched on, you have twenty-one kilometres

of dirt road that was built somewhere around 1926, 1927, and was upgraded by the

Americans in 1940 and has become - it was and it still is a major link for

people from North Harbour, Mount Carmel, St. Catherine's, and right down to

Admiral's Beach, the Colinet area, that use their road to travel back and forth

to Placentia. As many people know Placentia is a major town in our area. It has

the hospital, which is used by the whole area. The RCMP detachment touches into

the North Harbour - Colinet area. We have shopping, banking, and we have the

Argentia ferry terminal that is used during our tourism season. It is a very

important road for not only people within our district but indeed for people who

are travelling throughout the Province.

One of the things we have been trying to do to offset the

crisis that we have in our fishery is trying to develop our tourism industry in

our area. We have, as touched on before, a major link with the Argentia ferry

and places like Cape St. Mary's, and the Cataracts which is on this road, and so

on and so forth, that are part of this new tourism development that we are

talking about. Indeed, we would like to see this road upgraded and paved so we

could develop our tourism industry and bring to our district and our area all

the dollars that we could get from a new developed tourism industry. This road,

Mr. Speaker, is a major part of that tourism.

Mr. Speaker, in the next fiscal year, according to the

information I have, we are going to see a fair amount of road work done in this

Province. In the next fiscal year, I believe, the department is going to spend

somewhere a little less than $50 million on roads, and I am sure the minister,

in his wisdom, would be able to take some of that $49 million he plans on

spending next year -

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. MANNING: The $49 million that is going to be spent on

roads in this Province next year, I am sure that the minister will be able to

put some of that money into this very important connecting road, Mr. Speaker. We

have $49 million that is going to be spent on roads in this Province next year,

and I am sure the minister would be glad to support me on that. Forty-nine

million dollars - I am sure 21 kilometres of road could use a portion of that

money, that could be put to good use in this Province instead of being wasted in

many cases.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are many parts of this Province, I am

sure, that are looking for road work. Many parts of this Province, Mr. Speaker,

would like to have their roads upgraded and, in some cases, paved. But today we

speak of the 21 kilometres of road that connect the Placentia area to the St.

Mary's Bay north area, a stretch of road that is used by many, many people on a

daily basis. As a matter of fact, just Friday night, I, myself, had to travel on

that road and I met several vehicles on the road. It is a very important piece

of road used by many people. And as I said, we have $49 million that will be

spent in this Province on road work next year, under the different agreements we

have. I am very surprised that the Provincial Roads Program is only a very minor

part of that $49 million - I am surprised that back in 1989 we could find $40

million to spend on roads in this Province, on provincial roads; with four

different agreements with the Federal Government now, I believe, and with the

Provincial Roads Program, we are going to have $49 million to spend on roads in

this Province - and I think there is something wrong with that.

So I ask the minister to take this petition seriously on

behalf of the people who signed it. I ask the minister to take the issue of

safety seriously for the people travelling this road, and most important of all,

tourism development that we are trying to put forward in our area - with this

road paved, it would mean a major increase to tourism development. And with a

new building at Cape St. Mary's now, a new paved road to Cape St. Mary's, the

road paved between North Harbour and Branch, this would be the last of the roads

that would indeed put forward a proper tourism development plan for this area. I

am sure all the councils, all the associations, tourism associations and

committees in the area would fully support this petition I am sure. Many of the

people who are on those councils have signed this petition. I ask the minister

to take it seriously. This is a major link; we have been talking about it for

years. It is one of the oldest roads in the Province, the building of it having

been started about 1926-1927 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MANNING: - and I ask the minister, in his wisdom, to

put this forward and, on behalf of the people who signed this petition, to take

this petition seriously.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: I am going to be very quick, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say to the hon. members opposite that the

petition they presented, in drawing up the Budget, making recommendations to the

budgetary decisions for 1996, that the federal money is allocated, that we will

be looking at provincial funding and I will say to him very seriously, I will

place him on the priority list. My history, in the department, tells me I am

fair in allocating money and I will be as fair in the future as I have been in

the past, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

residents of Labrador City and Wabush. The prayer of the petition is:

Whereas because of budgetary restraint, new school-busing

proposals are unrealistic and dangerous; and -

MR. EFFORD: You're not serious!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW:

Whereas extreme climatic conditions and

local conditions force students to use school buses;

Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray that the government

allocate necessary funding to permit the continuing operation of a safe and

reliable school-busing program in Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and

speak to that petition, in the sense that previously, the Member for Fogo spoke

in presenting a petition on behalf of residents of Fogo and he talked about how

the people of Fogo deserve that the government reconsider the cuts to the busing

program on Fogo Island because of the extreme climatic conditions in Fogo -

approximately a $371,000 saving proposed by the Minister of Education and

Training, cuts to the busing program on Fogo Island. I have been speaking for

several days, presenting petitions, reading excerpts from letters, and the

minister says I was posturing.

Mr. Speaker, I quote from a letter that was written to me.

The similarity between both areas, are both have busing that has been designed

by people who live in the area and now they are being told by people from

outside their area that the new perimeters are going to be designed here in St.

John's and inflicted on people outside St. John's, and the people outside St.

John's are saying it won't fit.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the people in Western

Labrador have been sending me petitions and letters. I will read an excerpt from

one letter that was send to me by Kathleen Dyke. She says, a few of us have

taken it upon ourselves to write to you with our letters to Mr. Decker instead

of sending them directly to Mr. Decker's office, since we feel we are being

swept under the rug. We are afraid that no matter how many letters the various

groups send to Mr. Decker, he will ignore us, but if some of those letters reach

your hands first, instead of his, you can appeal to the government on our behalf

to reinstate our busing for this area due to the extremes in our climate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Decker,the minister responsible for

education and training, and the minister also responsible for school busing, the

minister also responsible for implementing the proposed cuts to school busing,

does not have the trust or the confidence of the people in Labrador, nor the

people in Fogo. He referred to, not me by name, but in essence to the fact that

I have been posturing in the presentation of similar petitions. I am not

posturing, I am merely stating what the people in Western Labrador feel with

regard to proposed cuts. The cuts will have the effect of a triple busing system

in Western Labrador, triple-decker busing in Labrador.

The people in Western Labrador feel that creates unsafe

conditions. Because of the extreme weather conditions, again similar to Fogo,

they think i is unsafe, to have triple busing. It is pitch dark at 7:15 or 7:20

in the morning because we are so far north, Mr. Speaker, and people feel that

would make it unsafe for young children to be at the bus stop at that hour in

the morning. It will also affect, in particular, the French immersion students

from the town of Wabush because they will not be given the opportunity to have

school busing. About sixty to seventy students will not be able to complete

their French immersion program because of school busing being removed. They will

either have to provide their own transportation or drop out of the system. That

is about six kilometres away and with our extreme climatic conditions it cannot

work.

I ask the minister to reconsider the proposed cuts, whether

it is in Fogo, where they express their opinions about what is occurring and how

it is unsafe for their children. I say to you, and I say to the Minister of

Education and Training that I will continue to stand and speak for the people of

Western Labrador as long as he persists in refusing to consider the unsafe

conditions that exist.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. A. SNOW: By leave, Mr. Speaker, if I may?

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has asked a question. Does the hon. member have

leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. A. SNOW: The Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation again gets his knuckles rapped. He is told to: keep quiet, sit

down and keep your mind out of it, and your mouth. I ask the minister to

reconsider the proposed cuts he has suggested for school busing in Fogo, in

support of their petition, and also in the area of Western Labrador. The

$330,000 that has been proposed to be cut from the school busing program should

not be made.

Mr. Speaker, I feel, as parents in Western Labrador feel,

that it is an unsafe condition that will exist if, indeed, these proposed

changes will be implemented. The extreme climatic conditions that have been

noted here - I have presented actual weather schedules where it has been -70̊ in

January or February, which is much too cold for young children to be out waiting

7:00 a.m., when it is very dark.

The fact that we will have triple buses or triple decker

busing, whatever you want to call it, that will mean we won't have any lunch

time busing in Labrador City and Wabush. In effect, what that will mean, because

our school is only one school that has been equipped with cafeteria facilities,

because most of our schools, four out of five schools, have not been equipped

with cafeteria facilities -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) have no respect (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I have a tremendous amount of respect for

you.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that four schools out of five do not

have cafeteria facilities means that these children will be going to school

without the proper facilities within the school structure itself to have their

lunches.

Other than that, what will happen, of course, is that more of

the parents will be coming down to the schools. In Labrador City itself, all

schools are located in the central part of the town, but because the parents are

going to be coming down to that area of town, we are going to have a tremendous

amount of traffic in that area,

whereas now what happens is that the school

buses come in and remove forty to fifty students per bus, all sixteen or

eighteen buses of them. What is going to happen now is that parents are going to

be coming in and taking people back, and there is going to be a lot of traffic,

and the people who are very close to the school are going to be walking, so we

are going to have the increased potential to have an accident. The potential

will be tremendously increased because of the increase in vehicular traffic,

because it is private cars coming down to pick up some of the students, and

because of the increased walking because there is no school busing being

provided, the potential for an accident is going to be tremendously increased.

Now, that will be unsafe.

To quote what a parent said to me on the telephone, while

they can see - they pay a tremendous amount of taxes in Western Labrador - they

can see and understand how the government must save some money -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is too much conversation to my left. I ask the hon.

members again to let the hon. member be heard.

MR. A. SNOW: While they can see and understand why there

has to be a savings of tax dollars, and they understand it more than most people

in this Province, more than a lot - I won't say most, a lot - of people because

they pay a tremendous amount of taxes and they want to see their taxes spent

wisely, but they also understand that we cannot forfeit children's safety for

the sake of a few dollars.

In the words of one parent, she asked me to ask the minister

how much he felt her child's life was worth. Was it worth the $330,000 that this

government would be saving on school busing in Western Labrador? In the same

vein, I am sure that the parents in Fogo who feel that the busing in Fogo,

because of the proposed changes, will be unsafe for their children, they would

like to know how much a child's life is worth in the minister's mind, because to

a parent and to me, and I am sure to most people, a child's life is priceless;

it does not have a price in any amount of dollars. You cannot buy a child's

life.

I would ask the government, and the minister, especially, to

reconsider his proposed cuts to school busing and allow local people in the

areas throughout this Province to implement what they feel is safe. Because they

have lived and worked in the area and understand what the local climatic

conditions are, and they should be the people designing the parameters.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

On motion, that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m., carried.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to just tell the House

what business we propose to do today and in the next few days. We may even make

progress if the hon. the Government House Leader stays away.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, today, I propose to call second

readings on Bill Nos. 46 and 50. Then we will move to Committee on Bill Nos. 44,

48, 51, 21 and 35.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you repeat that, please?

MR. FUREY: I could repeat it, yes. It is Bill Nos. 44,

48, 51, 21 and 35, and I propose to move those into Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I had asked the Opposition parties, Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the Opposition House Leader, to forego Private

Members' Day tomorrow. On the Order Paper you will see that the hon. the Member

for St. Mary's - The Capes has moved a motion which sits there for a private

member's day. They agreed graciously to forego Private Members' Day tomorrow so

that we could conduct government business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Merry Christmas (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, however, under the rules it does

require unanimous consent, and I sought the consent from my friend, the Member

for St. John's East, who also has a motion on the Order Paper in his name, which

would be right behind the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. However, the hon.

member, I think, is not so gracious. He wants to proceed with Private Members'

Day. But I will concede this to him, that the session hasn't ended, nor will the

session end, because after Christmas, the House will reconvene. He will know

that we sent the Mineral Tax Act to a Standing Committee of Government Services,

from the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, so we will have to come back and deal

with that particular piece of legislation.

At that time, I would propose that we follow the Order Paper

and that the Opposition days that are laid forward for the Member for St. Mary's

- The Capes, his resolution would come up, and behind that, the Member for St.

John's East. And surely, we could deal with it at that time. I would ask him to

reconsider unanimous consent to allow us to get on with government business. If

he so does, I would propose, with the agreement of Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition, to reconvene the House on Thursday morning at 10:00 and finish the

third readings of the orders on the Order Paper. I would seek House consent on

that particular matter.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No problem, Mr. Speaker. We concur with

what the acting Government House Leader has put forward. We have been party to

the discussions this morning and again this afternoon and we have no problem

with that. That is what we would like to see done. From where I sit, there are

members who want to go home for Christmas, have to book flights, have to drive.

If we go about it this way, those who have to go home tomorrow can go and those

who are left can then finish up on Thursday and be on the road by noon or 1:00

p.m. on Thursday, or catch a flight early on Thursday afternoon to get home.

What we have to remember is, for those who have to travel,

that all you need is a bad storm, and one thing and another, and they are here

for part of Christmas. I don't think any of us want that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Especially with the way the roads are,

too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) stay.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon? No, I mean, there are some of us

have to stay, too, you know, but yes, we realize that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have to confess some

difficulty following what the acting Government House Leader said. He has given

the order of business for today, and third readings for Thursday. Is he

proposing that tomorrow we do no business? I have a little difficulty following

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: All private members have an interest in

Private Members' Day, and the fact that we put them off for two or three weeks,

or in this case, two or three months, does not make up for the time. The

government is in charge of House business and can open the House or keep it open

at will, and it is the government that has loaded down the Order Paper. I don't

see why we should, at this stage of the game, start giving up on private

members' business for the sake of government business that is being opposed.

With respect to individual members' problems, it has been

suggested that if the roads were better looked after, people would not have to

worry about being stuck getting home.

On the other hand, the member has asked me to consider it and

I will consider it.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member; he is so

considerate. I just wanted to inform him - I thought he knew - that I said

earlier we were going to do two second readings today, which would put us into

Committee on those bills tomorrow.

Also on the Order Paper you will see Order 29 and Order 30,

which have some amendments to it, which we are preparing, which would be the

order of business tomorrow. So there would be four committees tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 39, is that the -

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, before we move -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would presume that the hon.

member would not keep us in suspense too long, because we do have to do some

planning.

The other point I wanted to make is that tomorrow we will

adjourn at 5:00 p.m., because Your Honour has asked that we move into your

reception to celebrate Christmas with your staff and the members, so we have

agreed to abide by that. Assuming that the hon. the Member for St. John's East

give unanimous consent, we will adjourn at 5:00 p.m., as is usual on Wednesdays,

anyway.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) consent to adjourn (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I know that. You didn't hear me. I said,

presuming the hon. member gives us unanimous consent to convert Private Members'

Day to a regular government working day, then we will not, on that regular

working day, move a motion to sit beyond 5:00 p.m. because His Honour is going

to host a reception. Therefore, I give notice that we would be adjourning at

5:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, could I call Order 40, Bill No. 50.

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

Medical Act". (Bill No. 50)

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

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

Bill No. 50, "An Act To Amend the Medical Act," is before us

and there are basically two areas that the amendments relate to. One is to the

requirement to be a member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Board. The

second, and more substantive amendments, deal with the issue of peer assessment

and peer review.

The purpose of the bill is to provide for Newfoundland and

Labrador to be able to participate in peer review assessments with the other

provinces in the Atlantic region, namely, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince

Edward Island. Mr. Speaker, this is a positive thing, as it reflects a

willingness by physician organizations in the four Atlantic Provinces to

co-operate with - to assist each other, really, in ensuring that physicians in

their respective provinces adhere to high standards of practice and clinical

assessment in terms of patient care and in the proper standards for

record-keeping and maintenance in terms of care administered to patients,

actually. In effect, the provinces will help each other by having physicians

from one province do assessments in another province.

The Medical Act was amended in 1992 to provide regulatory

power for the medical board to make regulations with respect to peer reviews.

And the subsequent legal review or after a subsequent legal review however, the

power that was given was deemed to be insufficient if it were set in regulations

only to cover the issues that needed to be addressed; therefore, the more

comprehensive amendments embodied in the bill that we have before us, Mr.

Speaker, were prepared.

The main purpose really, for this initiative, is to insure

that high standards of medical care are maintained. An important way to insure

this, of course, is to have periodic assessments and peer reviews undertaken by

physicians on themselves. While peer assessment review is being undertaken for

the public good, certain protections and certain other provisions are contained

in the bill for those positions to carry out and, of course, will be subject to

the assessment and the review process. These protections ensure basically that

physicians who carry out peer assessments and review will not have to use the

knowledge that they gain from the process in legal or disciplinary proceedings,

as that is not the purpose, of course, of peer assessments or the peer

assessment review program.

These protections, however, will not prevent the knowledge or

the information or the documents that exist outside of the peer assessment

review from being used in legal disciplinary proceedings, and I would point out

that these protections are necessary also to have physicians from other

provinces participate in peer assessment and review in their provinces.

Similarly, Newfoundland doctors will not be willing to carry out peer assessment

and reviews in other provinces without these similar protections.

The amendments that are before the House now and that we are

asking the House to approve, are consistent with those that are in place in fact

in other provinces. In order for there to be actual co-operation amongst the

four medical authorities, there have to be consistent ground rules of course,

for the operation of the peer review and assessment program. These measures are

positive steps, as I have said earlier, and they will serve to foster and

support a program of ongoing medical review and assessment in order to ensure a

quality of medical care and a high standard of medical practice.

I might add that the discussions that have led to the

preparation of the bill before the House are similar really, to those that were

undertaken in the late 1980s which led to the amendment of the Evidence Act, to

exclude from legal proceedings information obtained by quality assurance and

peer review committees and health care institutions. Basically, in order to

undertake the peer review and the quality assurance initiatives, we need to

provide protection to the people who carry out those initiatives for the benefit

of the public good.

We similarly need to ensure that we do not infringe upon the

rights of those persons who are the subject of the reviews and assessments. It

is in reality, Mr. Speaker, a question of striking an appropriate balance, I

guess, and never losing, of course, sight of the objective of the purpose for

peer reviews, because the entire exercise is to serve the greater good of the

public in terms of maintaining the high standards of care and services to

people. It would be naive, I suppose, to believe that peer review or meaningful

peer review can be undertaken without those mechanisms in place. In fact, in

reality, physicians will not go to other jurisdictions to carry out those

responsibilities without the measures being taken as being in the amended act

that is before us.

The other item covered, as I mentioned earlier in the bill,

are really of a housekeeping nature, relating to the Constitution of the Medical

Board in ensuring that the decisions and actions of the board are not deemed

invalid by virtue of some technical reason such as the qualification of board

members in terms of whether or not they have a given number of years of

experience.

Mr. Speaker,

section 1 adds several

definitions to the act.

Most are new and required in connection with the peer assessment process. This

section also adds a definition of licensing authorities, to include in our act

the licensing authority in the four Atlantic Provinces. This has to do, of

course, with the assessment process as well. This

section adds a definition also

for medical societies to include the medical societies of the four Atlantic

Provinces, again referring and having to do with the peer assessment process.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, in

section 1, this

section adds two

other

definitions, namely, the definition for `peer assessment committee' and

`peer assessment program'. The amendments to

section 2 of the act really does

this, it amends the existing

section 10 of the Medical Act. The amendment is, in

reality, housekeeping and it only adds the words `Mount Pearl' to the region,

where, as before, the region as specified in

Section 10 referred to St. John's

only. It clarifies, really, that three medical practitioners of the seven

elected amongst their peers to serve on the medical board have to be those from

outside St. John's and Mount Pearl as a region, and that was not clearly

indicated in the present

section of the act.

It also adds a new subsection that will change, or will

clarify, that decisions of the board, either before of after the coming into

force of the act, would not be invalid or ineffective by reasons of a

technicality such as a regulatory requirement concerning the election of board

members or concerning the qualification of board members, or concerning the

constitution of the board. An example of why this is necessary is that in the

past the board required, through its regulations, that members have at least

seven years experience as a physician before they could be elected to the

Medical Review Board. While this has now been changed, they want to prevent a

party from challenging and rendering a board's decision ineffective that was

rendered in the past based on this technicality.

Finally,

section 3 of the act introduces a number of new

sections to the existing act to provide for the establishment of the peer

assessment committee starting with

section 24 (1). There are a number of points

that I should make on this section, because it is really a whole new section,

and really, what it reflects is what otherwise was contemplated to have been

covered off in regulation but which was deemed by legal advice that regulation

was not the appropriate way to do it. It allows the medical board, first of all,

to enter into agreements with licensing authorities and medical societies in

other provinces for the peer assessment committee.

Section 3.24 (1) allows the board to determine those things

or requirements that would be included in such an agreement, and it provides the

peer assessment committee under the board's direction with the power to develop

and administer the program in line with the criteria set out on page 4 of the

bill, which refers to

section 24.31 (a). It also allows the peer assessment

committee to appoint physicians or doctors in this Province, or in one of the

other three provinces, as assessors for the purpose of peer review.

It grants the assessors certain powers to carry out their

work and these powers are more specifically outlined on page 5 of the bill in

section 24.5 (1). It also provides for reporting by the assessor and it provides

that the peer assessment committee may take certain actions as a result of the

report that becomes compiled as a result of their review. It provides that

where, during the course of an assessment, the physician or physicians doing the

assessment learn that the practitioner may be guilty of professional misconduct

or may be incapacitated or unfit to practice, in those cases, the assessment is

permitted to be terminated and the medical practitioner advised, and the matter

would then be dealt with through the normal protocols that currently exist in

the act to deal with such matters, where a complaint of such a nature would

otherwise have been registered by another person, or a party, with the medical

board.

It also requires the peer assessment committee to prepare and

publish on an annual basis a report of its activities for the preceding year.

The new sections regarding peer assessment excuse a witness in legal proceedings

from providing information retained or obtained by that person in the course of,

or in relation to, an assessment under the peer assessment program. In other

words, Mr. Speaker, a person who gains certain knowledge during the course of

performing a review would not be required to divulge that knowledge in a legal

proceeding since the knowledge was obtained for a different purpose. This

exemption, of course, would only apply to information obtained by a physician

who is carrying out the review. It would not protect information contained in

hospital records pursuant to law or to medical records maintained by physicians

pertaining to a patient.

Also, Mr. Speaker, although the witness is excused from

providing information obtained during the peer assessment process, the witness,

being a physician assessor, is not excused in a blanket sense from answering any

questions or proceedings or producing any documents which the witness is

otherwise bound to answer or to produce.

Similarly a physician-assessor or a member of the peer

assessment committee shall not be required to disclose in a disciplinary matter

information that they obtained during the course of doing peer reviews. Again,

the intent, Mr. Speaker, is that people should not use information they gain

from carrying out peer assessments activity for other purpose since the process

is not intended as a means to circumvent the normal processes for collecting

information or evidence to be used in such cases. The medical board as it stands

has the authority to hear any and all complaints that might be brought forward

by the general public or by a patient of a doctor who feels that they have not

been properly treated or have not received the service in a professional manner

that they would be entitled to as a patient of a physician.

The concept is that the peer review process is simply a

process to adjudicate the professional level at which the physician is running

his practice. If it turns up information that calls into question not the method

in which he is operating or the procedures that he has followed, but in fact his

qualifications or his personal conduct or calls into question the fact that he

may not be a proper professional by virtue of whatever reason, then of course

that is a different situation that would be addressed, as mentioned earlier,

through the normal protocols that exist.

These amendments to Bill No. 50 to the Medical Act as I say

were contemplated in 1992 to have been provided and taken care of by way of

regulations. Upon reflection the legal advice that the government received, and

I believe the legal advice that came from the Newfoundland Medical Board through

its solicitors, indicated that these legislative matters would be more

appropriately placed in the body of the bill, rather than trying to be covered

off with regulations. That is why these amendments are before us.

Just a minute to speak to the issue of changing the

requirement of a doctor from having to have seven years' licensure before they

can serve on the medical board. That principle or that condition was called into

question by a judge some time ago who was hearing a case against a doctor

through the Medical Board, a thing that was called to the Medical Board. The

solicitor for the patient made the point that it was unconstitutional or

improper to require somebody to be a doctor for seven years before they could

serve on the Board. On the basis, I guess, that a doctor is a doctor is a

doctor, and therefore the requirement was onerous and superfluous.

In order to take that out and just to have it simply being a

doctor of any length of licensure would be able to serve on the Medical Board,

this amendment will accommodate that situation. The amendment will also ensure

that actions taken while that requirement for seven years' licensure was in

place will not cause to invalidate any decisions or any actions taken previously

by the Medical Board as a result of operating on that basis.

Mr. Speaker, that in

summary outlines the essence of the

amendments that are before us in

An Act To Amend The Medical Act. I would be

happy to answer any questions that might be raised at the end of the debate when

I close. I move second reading.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just had a very

few comments. I had an opportunity to go through it and look at the current

statutes. I can certainly agree with the provisions here. The seven years

shouldn't be any reflection on a person's ability of competence or to perform

it, and I think that is certainly a good move.

There are protections here that I certainly can support.

Information that may be received by that peer committee other than based on a

complaint or based on an assessment there could not be used against that

particular general practitioner or physician or whatever that wouldn't be

pertinent to this issue. I think that is pretty fair game. It is important to

have certain protections built in under liabilities there. The minister made

reference to especially when someone is out doing their duty and carrying it out

appropriately, (inaudible) they need the necessary protections from any

liabilities that may arise in the performance of those particular duties.

I don't have any particular problems with this. It gives an

opportunity too for a peer assessment committee which may be in the process too

of reaching an assessment there if it comes to their attention that a

practitioner could be guilty of professional misconduct or incapacitated or

unfit to practice. There are always provisions to be dealt with through a

complaint procedure there.

Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation here. There are no

points that I've seen that are contentious there and that I would have any

particular problem with.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few brief

remarks, in fact, on this piece of legislation. It does parallel changes that

were made a couple of years ago that affected the Evidence Act

and I have the same reservations about this act as I have

about that one.

I understand that the medical profession needs to have an

opportunity to conduct peer reviews and assessments. In the past, the

Legislature did adopt rules that would exempt certain types of discussions and

reports between doctors and medical professionals in a hospital setting, to be

exempt from discovery and exempt from use in a civil procedure. The reason I

have a difficulty about it, I suppose, if you just looked at it in isolation,

absolute isolation, total isolation and said is it a good idea or not? The

answer probably is that it is a good idea. The big problem that you have is a

problem in legal proceedings by individuals who feel that they have become a

victim of medical malpractice. The major difficulty is within the medical

profession itself in getting someone to testify honestly, fairly and objectively

about standards of practice of medicine. You cannot get someone in this

Province, very easily, to testify in a court of law about whether or not some

other doctor was negligent.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: You don't need to do that because people who

are judging the standards of practice in the court of law are all themselves

lawyers,

whereas -

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: No, the acting Government House Leader wishes

to prolong debate and I will accommodate him. I will be happy to accommodate

him. He, his brother and I can sit down and have a chat about this subject at

great length - and his House Leader, the Premier and the Clerks at the table. We

can discuss this at great length but I would venture to say that the legal

profession is probably the most regulated profession. As one who sits on the

discipline committee of the Law Society, I should say that they also act very

clearly in reprimanding members when it is necessary to do so but that being

said, I would challenge anybody to deny the great difficulty in pursuing a

medical malpractice action because the medical profession itself is a fairly

closed group when it comes to finding evidence of someone else's negligence.

The difficulties are such that it often requires bringing in

people from out of the Province. As a result of these difficulties, very few

medical malpractice actions are able to get beyond the preliminary stages

because of the cost of doing that and the cost of getting a proper assessment. I

would be a lot happier if the medical profession would, in addition to doing

their peer review assessment, be prepared to designate individuals to

participate fully in attempting to judge the standards of the profession, the

standards of practice when it comes to individual circumstances and making

available people at little cost or no cost to individuals who are pursuing a

legitimate legal action to attempt to get proper evidence as to the standards of

practice or what occurred in a particular instance.

I think there are too many examples of privilege in our

society and I think that this is one of them. Obviously we see that there is a

need and it is one of these situations where there are conflicting needs there.

There is a need for the standards of assessment, review and peer assessment to

be able to operate so as to improve the practice of medicine and the practice in

hospitals and institutions. So obviously everyone supports that aim but to do it

at the expense of the availability of evidence to those who have a legitimate

reason to question the treatment that they have received in a particular

instances is dangerous, I say, because it does deprive individuals of an

opportunity to attempt to get justice in a civil matter arising out of the

circumstance.

I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that the

bill has the support of the majority of members of the government and the House.

In one extent it does in fact just add to the existing legislation the

opportunity to do that for a greater group of people; that is the peer review

committees of other provinces.

I think it does go a little further in providing that

protection and making sure certain records are not made available, but I do have

the same difficulty with this as I did with the previous legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

the debate, and he has moved second reading.

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

I want to thank my hon. critic from Ferryland for his

significant support for the bill, and for his co-operation in ensuring that this

very good piece of legislation is dealt with expeditiously today, and to the

extent that there is support from my hon. colleague from St. John's East, I

thank him as well for his support. I understand he expressed the same sentiments

in committee hearings back in 1992 when the Evidence Act was changed, although I

wasn't around then.

I should point out to him, I am not sure if there is an exact

parallel here, but I recall from my days in working with the Department of

National Revenue, I say to him, when we went out and commenced what would

otherwise be a routine audit, we used to call them field audits then, if certain

circumstances were turned up, and certain evidence came to light, and if certain

things were revealed in the audit, there was a process whereby the audit would

be moved from that

section of a standard audit type review to the Special

Investigations Division of the Department of National Revenue, which was a

division that was set up particularly to deal with SI cases, as we called them

then, where there were certain things pretty obvious, like fraud and that sort

of thing, and while there may not be a direct parallel between this, certainly

the fact that a physician terminates an assessment, if he is a peer review

assessor, and causes the medical board to take the matter over, as would be

normal under the protocols, is much like that situation. So there is nothing

here that prevents the further pursuit of investigation of a physician where

something becomes obvious where the peer assessment is reviewed.

Having said that, I appreciate the co-operation and support

of the other side of the House and I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act," read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

(Bill No. 50)

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

Technology. It has been a long day.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I know I have been away awhile,

so...

MR. SPEAKER: I was going to say international affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, Order 39, Bill No. 46.

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

Mineral Act". (Bill No. 46).

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with one issue, and it is the

requirement condition on a lease relative to further processing of a mineral

product. The Explanatory Notes are quite straightforward on this.

The amendments to the Mineral Act contained in this bill

would permit the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to require, if it desired to do

so, as a condition of a mining lease, that a lessee complete primary production

in whole or in

part in the Province of any minerals that are mined under this

particular lease. These amendments would also provide that the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall not impose such a requirement where the

lessee demonstrates that it would not be economically feasible to do so, or that

for some other reason it would not be reasonable to impose the condition.

What we have are some amendments in the specifics of the

bill, some amendments to paragraph 31 of the Mineral Act. It is adding a new

section, (vi): "that the lessee shall, where required by the Lieutenant-Governor

in Council, complete primary production, in whole or in part, in the province,"

et cetera.

Following on that some other sections have been added. The

first one, subsection (6), deals primarily with a definition of primary

production. Primary production means "production resulting from smelting,

processing or refining a mineral or mineral ore, and includes concentrating and

milling of a mineral or mineral ore and all metallurgical operations in which

metals or minerals are separated from those impurities with which they may be

chemically combined or physically mixed."

Subsection (7) deals with the notwithstanding part of this,

where "the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall not require as a condition of a

lease that primary production... be completed... where the lessee demonstrates

that it would not be economically feasible to do so...[or that] it would be

unreasonable to be required to do so."

Subsection (8) provides a definition of economically

feasible. Subsection (9) indicates that we will provide criteria in regard to

this by January 1 1997.

That deals with the bill, the first part allowing us to

require as a condition of a lease that further processing be provided, and as I

said, the condition, if the company can show that it is not economically

feasible to do so, then we would not require. The option is there. The option is

there though for us to require it if we deem it so necessary and appropriate.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few words on

this. I remember questioning the minister in Question Period some weeks ago now,

I guess, with regard to the Voisey's Bay find and saying: Was it the policy of

government that if it was economically feasible so to do, was it the policy of

government that you smelt it or leave it in the ground. The minister evaded

answering that question directly at the time. Obviously it would appear to be

policy of government. I guess the question that one must ask is whether or not

such policy should at this time be made law.

There are a number of factors obviously involved in

determining economic feasibility. The other factor involved in the bill,

reasonableness, certain worldwide market factors could very well make a smelter

feasible. Whether or not it would be wise under certain circumstances I guess is

a question that one could argue forever and a day. There is also, I suppose,

always the possibility with a law like this that some large international

company having widespread, worldwide holdings could buy up the entire project

and sit on it for a period of time, given the fact that it may well have

sufficient mineral properties elsewhere in the world to meet the needs of its

other smelters. Those are factors that I guess come into play when one thinks

about economic feasibility and reasonableness.

This brings me to a point I made generally with regard to the

other bill with regard to the taxes, Bill No 43. It is okay to have a policy

that we garner significant revenues and significant industrial benefits from a

mega-project mine such as Voisey's Bay. I guess the question is: should you make

law to that effect?

We are dealing with an industry that's already regulated in

terms of its operational procedures, it comes under the Environmental Assessment

Act, et cetera. There is already a taxation regime in effect and one would have

to ask: would it not be wiser at this stage in the game to enter negotiations

with the project concern with regard to a revenue-sharing agreement and with

regard to an industrial benefits package which of course, in this particular

case would obviously involve a smelter? That way, Mr. Speaker, the laws of

general application are left intact. The sales pitch that the Province is a

mining-friendly Province is maintained as far as the technicalities of the law

are concerned, and at the same time then, the government is fully free to pursue

its policy of maximum revenue access and maximum industrial benefits. Those

things are laudable policies and can be pursued at the policy level and at the

negotiation level.

Now one always has, Mr. Speaker, in government, access to the

Legislature at the call of the Speaker to enact laws where companies are

reluctant to cut reasonable agreements at the negotiating table, so one has to

wonder, with regard to the entire approach here, is it appropriate at this stage

of the game to use the route of enacting laws to achieve reasonable revenues and

reasonable industrial benefits, when there has been no demonstration that

negotiations along those lines have failed and makes that law as necessary?

With regard to the taxation bill, Mr. Speaker, the government

indicated that it was going to put the bill out to a committee for further study

in the New Year. It may well be advisable as well that the government put this

bill out to the same committee for similar study. The two items are in tandem,

Mr. Speaker, and they deal with maximizing revenues and industrial benefits to

the Province with regard to one specific, mining mega project and as I indicated

earlier, there is a valid question whether or not the policy of pursuing

maximizing these two goals, should at this stage in the history of the Province,

be pursued through law rather than negotiations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few words on this bill. I have to say that I support

the principle of the bill where the Province is being granted the power to

enforce a lessee to complete primary production in whole or in

part in this

Province of a mineral or mineral ore extracted or removed under a lease granted

under the Minerals Act. I think it is quite appropriate that this government

have the power to do that. It is after all the resources of this Province that

we are talking about and to give unlimited license to people to come and extract

the resources from this Province and cart them away for production elsewhere is

an abomination of the rights of the people of this Province.

We have to, oftentimes, force individuals and in particular

companies to act in the best interest of this Province when coming here to do

business. We are told of late, Mr. Speaker, the last number of years as part of

the neo-conservative agenda, as part of the corporate agenda, the free trade,

right wing individualist anti-co-operative, anti-collective rights atmosphere in

which we live, that we don't have the right anymore. That we don't have the

right anymore to do anything other than meet the bottom line of anybody who

wants to call himself an entrepreneur or a developer and it is wrong, Mr.

Speaker. It is wrong and this bill, giving the Province the power to insist on

the complete primary production of mineral or mineral ores removed under a

lease, is granted.

Now, what I do have a certain amount of difficulty with, not

the concept but I suppose the enforceability of it is, the business of excluding

from this provision where it can be demonstrated it is not economically

feasible, and the attempts, I suppose, to define or enforce the notion of a just

and reasonable return.

The definition of economically feasible in clause 1 of the

bill, the new subsection 31.(8) of the bill, says, "For the purpose of this

section, "economically feasible" means having the capacity to generate a just

and reasonable return but does not mean the capacity to generate the highest

possible return".

Now I really would wonder under what legal theory a judge who

may be asked to interpret this division in a court case, how a judge would be

able to determine what would be a just and reasonable return in a particular

circumstance. I would be interested in the minister's comments on that when he

closes debate. I presume that just and reasonable mean two different things,

that something could be a just return but not a reasonable one, or a reasonable

return and not a just one, and when a court is asked to determine whether a

particular rate of return on investment is reasonable or not, what does he

compare it to? Obviously he can compare it to other investments in the mining

industry, other investments in Canada, other investments in North America, other

investments in the Third World, and what would be a reasonable investment,

perhaps, one place may not be a reasonable return on investment another, and for

a court to be able to determine what is a just return seems to me to be very

difficult of

interpretation and application. Although the concept is a good one,

it is more of a political term than a legal term, even though obviously the

notion of justice is one that the law is used to dealing with, but it is very

difficult to apply the simple word `just' to a set of economic circumstances to

determine whether a particular rate of return is just, but one slightly more or

slightly less than that would be unjust.

While I sympathize with and commend the effort of government

to try and give itself the power to insist on primary production of minerals in

this Province, and to have whatever leverage it can have with mineral

exploration companies and mineral development companies, the question, I

suppose, at the end of the day is: Exactly what power does the Province have?

And if they break down the negotiations, how is a court actually to decide the

matter and determine who is right and who is wrong within the existing

legislation?

I would say, though, it probably gives the government

substantial leverage, and perhaps that is enough to have a position where it

can, in fact, establish a standard that it believes is just and reasonable,

which is the measuring point, and then have someone else determine whether or

not they are prepared to comply with that and go ahead with their production and

development, or their operation under a lease.

The criteria themselves, I suppose, under subclause (9),

perhaps would be the measuring stick as to what is just and reasonable. That

certainly would be a standard which the licensee or lessee would have to

establish its plans based on, but once again that seems to be a fairly moveable

criteria, since the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can change that whenever it

so wishes. It is not clear exactly how this act would be applied, but the

principle of it I support, and since we are at second reading and discussing the

principle of the legislation I want to offer my support for the passage of the

legislation. I think it is necessary to have this kind of power and right in the

government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to be able to insist on production

where it is possible to do so and where it feels it must do so in order to

ensure that this Province and the people of this Province receive the best

possible return on its mineral resources.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just very, very briefly because I do not want to belabour

this particular piece of legislation out of respect for Your Honour's wishes.

Just to reiterate my colleague for Green Bay who summed it

up, I think, quite accurately in that

whereas the general principle is one that,

I think, all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and all members, would certainly

want to support. Where it is economically and feasible to have smelting done in

the Province then certainly that should take place. It is important though to

recognize that

whereas we are putting in place with Bill 43 a whole new tax

regime, and here we are putting in place a whole new law respecting smelting,

that the two combined may well cause something to be unfeasible.

The minister should remember - and we are only using Voisey's

Bay as an example, but

whereas we have a very high grade ore here which should

give a reasonable rate of return, nevertheless if we impose unreasonable

taxation and unreasonable requirements for smelting, we could in fact make it

non-competitive in comparison with much lower grade ores in third world

countries where labour costs and other taxation measures are probably far more

favourable, so you have to look at the overall.

I think my colleague for Green Bay summed it up quite well

when he said that first of all there is no urgency for this particular bill to

pass today, and that it would certainly be inherently sensible, I think, to

refer this bill as well to the committee, along with Bill 43, since the two must

go hand in hand and should be considered hand in hand and not independently of

one another. It would make a lot of sense to do that, and secondly, as he also

said, we wonder whether or not this needs to be in legislation. The principles

are there. It is a valid policy perhaps but in accordance with the provisions of

Bill 43 in negotiating any final agreement, as we have already said, of course,

in relation to projects the size of Voisey's Bay perhaps a projects specific

agreement is more appropriate than trying to apply legislation of a general

nature. It is in accordance with that, in trying to combine all of these things,

Mr. Speaker, that it would be in the best interest to consider both acts

together in tandem and to try to find a complete set of legislation to apply to

the mining industry that is appropriate and that is fair and reasonable to both

sides. I am sure that is what we all want.

There is one other point I would like to make to the

Minister.

Whereas it requires in this legislation that in order to receive a

mining lease the commitment must be there for smelting if government so

perceives that. I think there may be a problem here in timing, in that in

applying for a lease it is a very early stage of the whole process of

establishing a mining operation and at that stage of the game the company may

not be in a position in all honesty to determine that smelting will be

economically feasible.

Now, I realize you cannot say to a company: go ahead and

start mining and we will decide later on whether or not you are going to

smelter. There might need to be some accommodation here as it relates to the

application for the mining lease and including in the business plan at that

stage of the game the final resolution as to whether or not smelting will be

part of it.

I ask the minister to consider, if he would, referring this

legislation to the committee, hand in hand with Bill 43 so that we can look at

the overall mining tax and regulatory regime that is going to be put in place in

this Province in its totality and not in isolation, Mr. Speaker. I recommend

that to the minister. Thank you.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak just for a few minutes on

the -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: It will be very short, I tell the Minister

responsible for Works, Services and Transportation, it will be very short if he

would allow me to continue.

But, Mr. Speaker, I don't suppose there is a person in this

Province who does not agree with the principle of adding value to a natural

resource that is going to be mined or produced in this Province. From the number

of mistakes that we have made, the number of mistakes that we have made in

previous development with regard to not adding a value to a particular resource,

Mr. Speaker, has cost this Province untold billions of dollars whether that

resource was in the fishery, which was probably the primary resource that we

started development here in this Province, or the oil industry. Probably the

next one was when we had the seal oil being processed here.

We never really derived any great benefits from the mineral

deposits that we developed here on the island and in Labrador but, Mr. Speaker,

to pass a law and say this is the way it is going to be at this particular time,

I am not sure what it is all about. I am not sure we just should not be doing

something on a project basis per se, with regard to it or have it as a principle

that we do it because I don't know where this is coming from in a sense of what

is going to happen with this particular development now, this mineral discovery

in Voisey's Bay.

I remember back when there was a discussion in this Province

in the late '50s, early '60s about the development in the Iron Ore Mines in

Western Labrador. The Premier of the day, at the time, said that there will be a

- we are talking about John C. Doyle's development of Wabush mines property and

the Premier of the day, Mr. Smallwood, said that there will be a pelletizing

plant in Wabush or else. The `or else' was that they were going to put it down

in - he was going to take some action. Then he went on to say that if they put

that pellet plant in the Province of Quebec it will be over my dead body. That

is what he said, it is going to be over my dead body and Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians cheered him for it. Boy, what a commitment by this Premier for the

people of this Province to stand up and fight for -to get the most, get the

highest amount of revenue possible. The highest number of benefits, the greatest

amount of benefits that can accrue to the people of this Province from a

resource. He was going to sacrifice his life for it, that is what he was going

to do. Lo and behold, what do we see happen? A pellet plant was built. It was

built down in Seven Islands, in Point Noir to be exact and what do we see today?

We have lost untold hundreds of jobs because of it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I say that and today the Premier agreed

with the principle -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the Premier today

agrees with the principle of further adding value to products in Labrador. As an

example, he said today in Question Period: we would like to see development of

these timber resources take place in such a way that the maximum possible use

occurred within the Labrador area. Mr. Speaker, the Premier said that about

timber and I am sure that he would like to see it with minerals. I feel that it

only be proper that we should have it with minerals, we should have it with

timber but resources we are going to develop in Labrador, we should add that

benefit within Labrador. I think that if there is any hope for this Province we

have to start thinking in that manner. It is an area of this Province that has

been exploited to the nth degree with regard to the attitude from the insular

part of the Province of: Go up north, go to work, take the resources, come back

and live down here on the Island, or whatever it is, take the resources, process

them in Quebec, and when the mine is finished that is it; we will close her up

and move on.

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at this, I believe. If we have

any hope in this Province we have to be using Labrador as our method of

development and progress. That is going to be the engine. That land will be the

engine of recovery for this Province, but it won't be if we continue along the

lines that we are going to bring the resources down here, add value to them, and

then everything will be okay; we will create a few more jobs, another

Stephenville mill in point.

Today in Question Period we talked about how our woods

resources on the Island portion of the Province have been put in jeopardy

because of the increased load that has been put on it, the increased demands

that have been placed upon it, because of the addition of another mill on the

Island portion of the Province. If that mill had been located within Labrador we

would not have the problem of resources today with regard to the demand on the

timber. We probably would have had that mill working today in Labrador, making a

good dollar for the investor, creating a lot of employment in Labrador for the

people of Labrador and the people of the whole Province, and the people of this

Province have to start thinking that it is better to go to work in Labrador than

it is to have to move to Northwest Territories, or to move to Manitoba, or move

to British Columbia, or to get twenty weeks work in Ontario. It is better to go

to work in Labrador and live there for the next couple of hundred years. That is

what we have to get our minds around.

Mr. Speaker, if that mill had been put in Labrador we would

have two good mills in this Province, or at least the resources would have been

available without a problem for two mills. That mill would have been operating.

We probably would have had a lumbering industry with that mill in Labrador. It

would have increased the transportation routes within Labrador because of the

extra commerce going on in Labrador, so that land would have been opened up.

That land would have been further developed. It would have been a greater

opportunity for investment, which means a greater opportunity for more business,

which means a greater opportunity for more employment.

We have to take the same approach with the mineral

development. We just can't think of taking that mineral from the Labrador

portion of the Province, bringing it down to the Island and say we are going to

put it here. It has to be done within Labra