May 16, 1991                 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLI  No. 51


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before going on with the routine business of the day, on behalf of hon. Members, I would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery, today, the Ambassador of Japan to Canada, His Excellency Michio Mizoguchi and Mrs. Mizoguchi, and the Consul from the Consulate General in Montreal, Mr. Yasuhiro Hori. They are accompanied by Mr. Aiden Maloney, the Honourary Consul General of Japan in Newfoundland.

I would like to welcome to the gallery, sixteen adults for basic education from the Avalon Community College here in St. John's, with their Instructor, Laurie Tulk.

I welcome. also, eight Pathfinders from Carbonear, with their parents, Mrs. Edna Roberts and Mrs. Cindy Gosse.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Premier. Just about two years ago, in July of 1989, the Government launched its campaign to amalgamate over 100 municipalities. After much bungling, several retractions and mass confusion, only a couple of groupings of municipalities have come together co-operatively. Now, the Government is moving arbitrarily in the House of Assembly to deal with the seventeen municipalities in the Northeast Avalon. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, over eighty municipalities outside the St. John's area are still in limbo. My question is: When and how will the Government resolve the question of amalgamation for the eighty or more municipalities outside the St. John's area? Will the Premier finally call off Eric the Amalgamator, withdraw the threat and allow communities to breathe easy and citizens to live as they choose to live?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that there were five or six groups of municipalities that came together - not a couple, as the hon. Member suggests - voluntarily, and amalgamation has taken place. I am told by the Minister that a significant number of others are considering voluntarily amalgamating. It seems to me there may well be a few other groups of municipalities that the Government may deem it expedient to bring proposals before the House to deal with. We do not intend to call off any amalgamation policy, or Eric the Amalgamator, as the hon. Member suggests. The hon. Minister will continue his work to provide for better municipal government in this Province and to try to correct some of the errors that have accumulated over the past twenty or thirty years.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Premier may or may not be aware, his Minister, Eric the Amalgamator, now known as Eric the Procrastinator, was on CBC radio, yesterday, saying that his proposals to combine municipalities in the area of Corner Brook, Stephenville and Deer Lake are `natural and simple' and his Government would be proceeding to deal with them in the next few months.

Now, is the Premier, who represents Mount Moriah, one of the municipalities affected, and who claims Corner Brook as his home, aware of the intense opposition to the proposals for combining municipalities in these areas of Western Newfoundland? And, accordingly, is he now prepared to live up to the word he gave the House of Assembly in the fall of 1989, and I quote: `The Government has also stated very clearly its position that once the assessment is done, if towns do not want to amalgamate, if they are opposed to it, the Government will not force amalgamation on towns that do not want to amalgamate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say it for the third time, `The Government will not force amalgamation on towns that do not want to amalgamate.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. Member is being selective.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Let me begin again, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member is very selective in her position. Let us just take the Corner Brook area: We are dealing with the Town of Mount Moriah, which I have the great honour to represent in this House, we are dealing with the Town of Massey Drive, which the hon. Member has the honour to represent, but there is a third major municipality in that mix, and that is the City of Corner Brook.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the City of Corner Brook wants the amalgamation, but the others do not.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: The City of Corner Brook is -

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

PREMIER WELLS: The City of Corner Brook, the City Council in Corner Brook, and the people of Corner Brook are horrified by the terrible treatment the former Government gave them in creating a situation by feeding everything in to Massey Drive and causing an exodus of taxpaying citizens from Corner Brook into Massey Drive, where everything was paid for them by the former Government.

MS VERGE: That is why (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the City of Corner Brook is most anxious to have this unfair and unbalanced treatment corrected, and we are committed to ensuring that fairness and balance at long last will reign in the City of Corner Brook as well as Mount Moriah and Massey Drive.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest to the Premier that he pay a visit to his district and talk to his constituents and some of his former neighbours. He will find out that virtually nobody in the area wants this amalgamation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the case of the northeast Avalon the Government is proposing to transfer from the Provincial Government to the City of St. John's costly responsibility for the Aquarena and the Canada Games Park, without increasing funding to St. John's, to offset the financial burden associated with running these facilities. Does the Premier have any thought of similarly foisting on other municipalities, such as Gander, Corner Brook, Stephenville, and Happy Valley, responsibility for running other presently provincially controlled swimming pools or recreation facilities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Aquarena and the Canada Games Park are recreational facilities that are used by the people in this area. The people of St. Anthony get no benefit from it whatsoever, none at all. The people of Deer Lake get either no benefit, or virtually no benefit from it. Now, Mr. Speaker, we think it is totally and completely unfair to use the taxes collected by the retail sales tax in Fogo, in Burin, or in Bay d'Espoir, or wherever, to operate recreation facilities for the St. John's area and deprive those areas of recreation facilities. We think that is unfair and unbalanced, so we intend to take steps to ensure that those who get the benefit of these kinds of services really take the fundamental responsibility for it. Now, that does not mean the St. John's city area only, it means the municipalities in the area that would be serviced by the Aquarena and other like facilities, and the other facilities that the St. John's City Council will continue to provide for the municipalities in the region. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, they would expect to charge the other municipalities a reasonable portion, but it would be unfair to charge the people of St. Anthony or Port au Choix for doing that by taxing them to do it, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs I will put my questions to the Premier as well. When I asked the Premier yesterday about specific assessments and specific feasibility studies of the amalgamation proposals that the Minister tabled in this House on Tuesday, the Premier said the following. And lest the Premier, as he normally does, tries to say we are misquoting him, I will quote word for word what the Premier said.

He said: "Mr. Speaker, the Government will table the reports of whatever commissions were done but I do not know that there were any specific assessments done by any specific officials with respect to any specific proposal." That was the Premier's quote from page 1 of yesterday's Hansard, tape 2008.

Now, I want to ask the Premier: in view of the answer that he gave me yesterday, how are Members of this House to decide on the feasibility of the amalgamation proposals that the Minister put forth in this House on Tuesday? How are Members of this House to decide whether or not those particular municipal groupings are viable municipal units?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as hon. Members know there were certain commissions done. Now I do not know that there was a specific commission done, for example, with respect to Paradise, St. Thomas, Topsail Pond and Three Island Pond - that particular combination - I suspect there was not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I do not - well, maybe there was. I do not believe there was for that particular combination but there was an assessment for, I believe, St. Thomas and Paradise, but it did not include all of that. So what I conveyed to the House was I do not know that there were particular commissions for the specific combinations that were put forward. But in any event, we are quite prepared to table whatever information has been made available in this commission. And we will make that information available.

Now, the second thing: with that information, and with the ordinary information that is available to any Member of the House, and with ordinary diligence and work and effort on the part of the Opposition, we would expect them to bring their good judgement to bear on whether or not these were sound proposals or in their judgement unsound proposals, and exercise their vote accordingly. We do not operate on the assumption that they do not know anything on the opposite side of the House. We assume that they know something and they can deal with the information that is available. We assume that they do not need somebody to tell them specifically that this and only this can be done for these and only these reasons. We think they can do it themselves, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, you have to go in a roundabout way to get an answer from the Premier because what he has done today is confirm what he would not confirm yesterday and that is, that the process was illegal. There were no assessments done. Now, he has confirmed that today.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this: Does the Government know if there will be any additional cost to municipal taxpayers as a result of the proposals tabled in this House yesterday? Were there any assessments or feasibility studies carried out on that? Can the Premier tell the House whether or not those new municipal units, that are proposed in this resolution, will be able to generate the residential and industrial tax bases to be able to service the new areas that some of those proposed new municipal units are taking in? Are there studies to show that can be done viably?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I believe there are no additional costs solely by reason of the amalgamation. I believe there will be less cost arising solely by reason of amalgamation. If, Mr. Speaker, in addition, they are going to provide additional public services in communities that are amalgamated, then I would not be at all surprised to find that there would be additional cost.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that if the Leader of the Opposition wanted the Member for Mount Pearl to ask a question in answer to his question, he would have directed the request to the Member. But bearing in mind that he directed the request to me, I would like the opportunity to answer without that volume of noise intervening.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you are looking at only the fact of the amalgamation, the fact of it itself will not result in any increased cost and should indeed result in decreased cost by reason of better opportunity to save duplicated cost. If you are looking at increased public services in any sector or any group of municipalities then I would not be at all surprised to find some level of increased cost by reason of providing increased services.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: We still do not have an answer from the Premier as to whether or not the information is going to made available to this House and I understand the debate on that resolution is due to begin here tomorrow.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this: Have there been any assessments done or any feasibility studies carried out on the effect on municipal taxpayers of shifting the financial burden for cultural and recreational centers from the Province to municipal taxpayers? For example, in the case of St. John's, there was a $1 million subsidy paid by the Province last year to the Aquarena. Now, have there been any assessments or studies carried out on the effect of shifting that burden from the general taxpayer of the Province to the rate payer in the City of St. John's?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Any supplementary cost, or deficiency, in the cost of operating the Aquarena will not alone be shifted to the people of the City of St. John's. It will be shifted to the people of the communities that use it, whichever ones use it. What we have done, Mr. Speaker, and we think we have done wisely and fairly is shifted the burden from the people who get no benefit whatsoever from it, the people of St. Anthony, the people of Burin, the people of Grand Falls, and the people of Port aux Basques. We have shifted the burden from them, because they get no benefit, to the people who get the benefit, and hon. Members opposite do not like this wise Government because it shows them up as being unwise and unfair in their manner of Government.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the wise Premier will tell the swim teams from St. Anthony, Corner Brook, Baie Verte, Buchans, and all over this Province that come in to use and to train at that facility that they are not important, Mr. Speaker. That is what he is trying to tell them.

MR. SIMMS: He did not know that.

MR. RIDEOUT: Minister know it all, God Almighty, did not know that. Let me ask the Premier if there were studies carried out to determine the effect on the municipal tax payer of transferring the provincial recreational and cultural facilities to the municipalities? Were there, or were there not, studies carried out, and if there were not, why were they not carried out? Does the Premier not want the people of the Province to know, and the municipal taxpayers to know?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it may come as an utter shock to the Leader of the Opposition, and I have no doubt from his comments that it would come as an utter shock, to discover that there are other pools in the Province at which swimmers train. It comes no doubt as an utter shock that they don't only train at the Aquarena. They have lost complete control.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, whether or not there was any specific study done on that particular issue is more than I can say at the moment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Whether or not there was any study done with respect to the financial effect of the transfer of the Aquarena to the administration of the council of the City of St. John's is more than I can say at the moment. I genuinely do not know but I will endeavour to find out, and either I, or the Minister responsible will report to the House in the morning.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Social Services. The Minister has recently introduced a new form, form 14799, which applicants for social assistance and their spouses are required to sign. The form authorizes the release of personal information before they receive the assistance. Now, how can the Minister justify a form to release any and all information about social assistance applicants, their spouses and their children - now or in the future I might add - and in particular, the release of all medical records of social assistance applicants, their spouses and their children? Is that not an unwarranted intrusion in the private lives of these people? And how can the Minister justify a form asking this all encompassing type of information?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My answer to the question of whether I consider this the wrong procedure - absolutely not. When anybody comes to the Department of Social Services to apply for assistance under the Social Assistance Act we must be able to obtain all information - financial information - about the individual who is applying for social assistance. In the case that somebody comes and applies for medical assistance or assistance for special medical reasons, we must have that information at our disposal. Any time that any individual, regardless of what age, applies to the Department of Social Services, whatever information is kept on file is purely and clearly confidential information, and is for the purpose of the information required in doing a financial assessment. It is the proper procedure and it has been recently implemented by the Department of Social Services. It should have been done years ago, but it was never done. But now it is the new procedure and it is the correct procedure.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would not sign a form like this, neither would the Minister. Neither would anyone in my sight. So why should poor people have to sign it? Is this not a total waiver of any rights that might exist between a client and her lawyer, which this form gives the right to do, a patient, a doctor, a husband, a wife. The spouses' relationships, their marital thing. Is this not a total and absolute surrender of a person's rights when he signs this particular form?

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

MR. EFFORD: Let me tell the hon. Member for Port au Port very clearly, if he would not sign the form then he would not get any assistance from the Department of Social Services. That is very clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, when individuals come to the Department of Social Services they come to apply in most instances for financial reasons. Anybody who comes to the Department of Social Services and applies for assistance and we gave it to them we could discover afterwards that that individual could possibly have a bank account of $20,000. We have to get the information to know if those people qualify, otherwise we are jeopardizing the Canada Assistance Plan and the rules and regulations of the Department of Social Services.

Secondly, as far as medical information goes, if an individual, for argument's sake, take in the case of my own, for diabetes, if I go to the Department of Social Services and I apply for insulin or for needles, and I say I want $50 to buy insulin needles and I do not provide the medical information, then I could very well get it under false pretences. So it is only to verify the medical problem that an individual has. And it is kept very confidential.

The fact is that the thing that is being done in the Department of Social Services now is the correct procedure, unlike the manner in which it was done for seventeen years, in an ad hoc manner when nobody knew which direction they were following.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am the first to realize that Department of Social Services recipients have to sometimes give some specific information, but, would the Minister not agree that this is a blanket invitation to the person who accepts it, for every single type of information? And would the Minister not agree that every person has a right to privacy whether they are poor or not?

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

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, to the first part of the question. Secondly, it has nothing to do - in fact, it is to protect the people who cannot provide money for themselves. The one clear message we want to send out is that the people who need the services of the Department of Social Services will get them, not the people who do not need them.

Unfortunately, in many instances, you get people applying to the Department of Social Services and abusing the system. This is a clear procedure to make sure that the people who need the care of the Department of Social Services will receive it. In going to any institution to apply for services, you must provide information.

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

MR. EFFORD: This is only a form to give the social worker the right to that information. If individuals disagree with that, they have the right not to sign the form, but we are asking that we be able to check out that information.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West was Minister of Social Services. He should be ashamed to even talk about it, because his history as Minister of Social Services is clearly recorded in this Province.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

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

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

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. The Province has been asked to cost-share a regional waste management study. The study would cost approximately $100,000, of which the Province has been asked to contribute $60,000. The City has agreed to contribute $27,000 and Mount Pearl has agreed to contribute $13,000. I understand the Government, initially, turned down the request.

Will the Government reconsider its rejection of this reasonable request and agree to assist in the carrying out of this important study?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said in the House, I believe it was last week, when we discussed the problem of waste disposal on the Northeast Avalon, and I said I would revisit that particular study. No decision is made, as yet; we understand the problem quite clearly. The Minister of Environment and Lands and myself have had dialogue with the councils involved and have been looking at the problem, and I will be reporting shortly, as to whether or not we can, in fact, revisit that question of studies.

MR. PARSONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

The City has also asked the Province to cost-share 50 per cent of the $20,000 cost of the southwest area servicing study. This study would prepare a plan for providing water and sewer services to the southwestern portion of the Northeast Avalon Peninsula. What is the Government's response to this request?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I asked my staff to identify the five studies that were originally requested and prioritize them once again for me, because sometimes priorities change over time, and particularly, the study, as far as the dump site is concerned, and we would have a look at the whole picture, including the study that he mentions. Whether or not we can prioritize one or two or any of those studies, given the fiscal restraint problems we have, is a question I will have to answer shortly.

MR. PARSONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, and right to the point, I ask the Minister: Does he agree that these studies are regional in nature and deserve the Province's support?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question because part of the consideration is whether or not the Province should be sharing in these studies. We are also addressing that. If, in fact, Government has a provincial interest on a global scale, if you like, in the Northeast Avalon, and should be contributing provincially, we will. But the cost-sharing arrangement is one of the questions that I have asked my staff to look at, as to whether or not we should be part of it at all? If it is strictly a municipal matter and not provincial in nature, probably it should be cost-shared strictly by the municipalities. That is one of the questions I have asked and I will address that when we make a decision.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

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

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

I ask the Premier, Has the Government received a proposal from Fortis Corporation, the parent company of Newfoundland Power, a company with which the Premier, of course, would be very familiar from the old days, to purchase any of the Holiday Inns in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can only say with absolute certainty that I have not, Mr. Speaker. Whether or not some other Minister in the Government has received a proposal, I do not know. If they have, they have not advised me of it.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

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

MR. SIMMS: This is the Minister of Finance, then, who probably should know. Can the Minister of Finance confirm that Fortis Corporation presented a proposal to the Government several months ago, offering to purchase the Holiday Inn, in St. John's?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, when the Holiday Inns are leased to a corporation, or operation, it has the option to purchase at the end of that lease, and that question is being looked at at the present time. I do not particularly want to get into any details about who is, and who is not presently negotiating with the Government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

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

MR. SIMMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister and the Premier cannot answer the question, perhaps, I can advise them and ask if they would check it out. I have been informed by the Vice-President of Fortis Corporation that indeed, they did make a proposal to the Government several months back, for the purchase of Holiday Inn here in St. John's.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance - I guess, he seems to be the Minister responsible for this - Is the Government considering the proposal put forth by Fortis, as I said, several months ago, for the sale of any of the Holiday Inns?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we have not the right, at this point, to consider that. I told the hon. Member that another corporation has the right to exercise an option, and any private correspondence directed from one company to the Government about possible events that might occur in the future, is private information, and I will not divulge it.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I hear all kinds of suggestions being put forth by people for a supplementary question but the one I am trying to get at from the Minister's perspective is: If they are considering a proposal, for example, from Fortis Corporation, which I understand Fortis Corporation has submitted to the Government - the Minister is not forthcoming in telling us if they are considering it - are they considering inviting offers from anybody else? Are they considering going public, if they are going to do it in an open fashion rather than just with, perhaps, friends of the Government.

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

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

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance: Has the lease to which he refers, run out? If not, when will it run out? Does he know that?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I am not absolutely certain when the lease runs out, or if it has run out, but it is in that period. It has either just run out or will shortly run out. That is something that we will be dealing with very shortly.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

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

It is a pleasure, at this time, for me to rise and table a report of the Government Services Legislation Review Committee respecting the draft bill, "An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting Pensions For Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, The St. John's Fire Department, And The Staff Of Her Majesty's Penitentiary." At this time, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Committee and also thank the resource people from the Department of Finance, Mr. Bennett, some of his assistants, and, of course, the Deputy Clerk, Ms Murphy, who acted as Secretary for the Committee.

Thank you.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the exceptions to the Public Tendering Act for April 8, 19 -

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

MR. PENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Government Services Estimates Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have passed, without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure of the Departments of Finance, Works, Services and Transportation, Employment and Labour Relations, and Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Social Services Estimates Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have passed, without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure of the Departments of Social Services, Education, Health, Environment and Lands, and Justice.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Crop Insurance Act, 1973," a major topic. Thank you.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying yesterday, I wanted to table the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair yesterday said that it would undertake to look into what precedent and practice were in the House. I have done that in the time I have had, and unfortunately, I found that it was worse than I thought. As I indicated yesterday, there is no indication of any ruling ever having been made; that is not to say there was not one made. But, inasmuch as our system allows one to go through and find out whether or not there was a ruling, we can find no such ruling. Practice and tradition allow all kinds of things, and if hon. Members wish, I come well-armed with various statements, under this particular heading, made by hon. Members present, and I have them selected. When one is trying to establish precedent, naturally, one can only take them from certain sections, and I have taken them from 1975 to 1984. I have not done 1985 yet, but I can tell hon. Members, it ranges in Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given, we have all kinds of precedence for Ministers commenting. I do not think I can refer hon. Members to all of these, and find where all kinds of things went. My ruling is substantially the same as the one I made yesterday, that this particular item, Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given, is an extension of Question Period, all the rules apply, and Ministers, in giving their reply, should try to be as brief as possible.

The hon. the Minister of Development.

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is a first, trying to muzzle Government.

The questions that were asked dealt with the travel of the Minister of Development, and those answers were tabled yesterday. Then I proceeded to start to talk about the specific questions that were put to me with respect to the President and the Vice-Presidents. The specific questions dealt with travel, hotels, meals, entertainment. I will not go through the list of Presidents and Vice-Presidents, Mr. Speaker, unless hon. Members wish me to do so, or I can just give the totals, but I can tell you

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: So the total for the president and all the vice-presidents throughout the Province was $20,213.29. Mr. Speaker, the travel basically was through Gander, Corner Brook, Lewisporte, consultative meetings all throughout the Province, Postville, Hopedale, Labrador City, Churchill Falls, Wabush, Goose Bay, Buchans, Lewisporte, Bay D'Espoir on and on and on. So I will table these, and these are a detailed breakdown of where each vice-president went, where they stayed, how much they spent on meals, what was spent on entertainment and who they entertained. I have to get after these people to get them to travel more. If we are going to develop this Province they will have to get out and around and travel even more, so I will table this, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my friend from Grand Bank that my travel budget was $100,000 in 1989-90 and I spent $70,000. My predecessor, in three years spent $460,000 or -

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

I ask the hon. Member please not to get into debate. Obviously, the hon. Member a the question and I ask hon. Members please to refrain from debate. When a question is asked, then it is appropriate for a Member to deal with it, but I ask the hon. Member to please get onto the -

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, in a separate question my hon. friend from Grand Falls asked: since the existence of the Recovery Commission how much each commissioner spent on travel, hotels, meals and entertainment.

MR. SIMMS: That was not a separate question. It was all part of the same question.

MR. FUREY: No, you are right. It was all part of the same question, that is correct. But it asked a very specific - are you frightened of the answer or something, is the hon. Member for Grand Falls frightened of the answer? I mean, my God Almighty, this is unheard of to be frightened of an answer.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. I mean we have no problem with the Minister getting up and putting on a display for the press gallery, which he is wont to do from time to time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: He rarely gets on Question Period or anything else because of that kind of performance, but Your Honour just ruled that the same rules that apply in Question Period would apply under this heading and the Minister has been up now for about four minutes since 2:43 in answering one question which I asked and he continues to abuse the rules. Now Your Honour knows that the Opposition has no right to respond or to further question the Minister. So it is strictly an abuse of this particular order and I think it is a flagrant abuse of Your Honour's ruling of a moment ago. I mean he already tabled the answer, everybody will see it. That is all we are asking instead of wasting the time of the House.

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

MR. BAKER: To that point of order, Your Honour. Obviously the Opposition House Leader did not hear Your Honour's ruling. Your Honour ruled that the precedents of this House are that Ministers are allowed to comment upon tabling of answers. The Members opposite have been doing this for years. So Your Honour's ruling was that answers do not simply have to be tabled, but a comment is allowed.

The other point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that if Members opposite want the answers to be over with as quickly as possible, I would suggest that they stop their harassing tactics. They obviously do not want to hear the answers. And of the two and a half to three minutes that the hon. Member was on his feet, Your Honour, most of that time was spent in either waiting for Members opposite to be quiet enough to be able to give the answer or in responding to questions thrown across the floor at the hon. Member. So, Mr. Speaker, if they want to hear an answer, then the best way to hear the answer is to sit down, be quiet and listen. They might learn something.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair has made the ruling that the answers ought to be brief. As I said, this Chair has made that ruling and I have tried to stick by it. That ruling has never been made before, if we go by precedent. As I have said, I can read to hon. Members where they went on and on and on and I have it here. And I have said it is going to be brief, and brief is to be decided by the Chair and not by others. If not, we are just going to have a state of chaos in this House, and the gravity is to be decided by the Chair.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I promise to be brief. Dr. House in fiscal year 1989-1990, for travel, hotel, meals, entertainment, with all guests, all modes of travel, all places travelled to, spent $4,919.96. His hotels cost $428.74. His meals cost $432, and his entertainment $238.07 for the fiscal year 1989-1990. In 1990-1991 Dr. House travelled considerably more, mostly in Newfoundland, 97 per cent in Newfoundland. His total travel was $12,210.36. His hotel bills were $1,236.84. His meals were $1,297, and his entertainment was $259.70.

Commissioner Sherk in 1989-1990, in the Labrador region, which is her responsibility, travelled mostly in Newfoundland and Labrador, 95 per cent. Her travel costs were $5,916.25. Her hotels were $852.37. Her meals were $780.42, and her entertainment was $175.77. Commissioner Sherk in 1991 travelled slightly more, mostly in Labrador, $11,868.10. Her hotels were $903.64 and her meals were $975.20.

Commissioner Pointer, for 1989-1990. Total travel, $474.81. Hotels, $158, Meals, $111. Commissioner Pointer for 1990-1991. Travel, $6,513.12. Her hotels were $2,410.98. Her meals were $792.95. And her entertainment $187.53.

Commissioner Humphries had considerable travel throughout the Province for 1989-1990. His travel was $12,654.28. His hotels were $3,306, his meals $2,011, and his entertainment $213. In 1990-1991, considerable travel again, mostly in the Newfoundland area, some of it in the Halifax-Toronto area, $22,271.14. Hotels, $2,693 -

MR. SIMMS: Point of order.

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

MR. SIMMS: I would ask Your Honour directly how long he is going to let this abuse continue?

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

I have made the ruling and I have told hon. Members what the practice and procedure is and hon. Members have a procedure to rule against the Chair. But these constant points of order - I have been looking at the Minister to see what detail he is going into. He is skipping over three and four pages and it looks like he has one to go and it is over. And I do not consider that -

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Point of order.

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

MR. SIMMS: Did Your Honour simply rule a moment ago that answers under this head would be treated the same as answers in Question Period? They should be brief. Did he not say that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is not going to debate with the hon. the Opposition House Leader. And I have said that there is no point of order. The Chair decides what brevity will be. And I have considered, in view of the answer, that the hon. the Minister has not been excessive. And I would ask him to finish, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. FUREY: Finally, Your Honour, the totals for Commissioner Humphries then would be - I named the travel costs for 1990-1991. Hotels, $2,693, meals $2,742, and entertainment $493.

Your Honour, that is the President, all the Vice-Presidents, the Chairman of the Commission, all of the commissioners. And in total I think, in two years, all of these people spent far less than just my one predecessor, Minister Barrett, in all of his three years as Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to lay upon the floor of the House my expenses for the period April 1, 1990, to March 31 1991.

I think it is important with a Ministry which formerly - I should make this point first, I believe, I think it is pertinent - was three Ministries and is now one. Previously Municipal Affairs and Culture, Recreation and Youth, and Housing, three separate Ministries. They say I was the author of amalgamation but I think really the Premier should take credit for it, long before I started the amalgamation procedure in the municipalities, when he downsized the Government to reasonable numbers compared to the previous Government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair does not have in front of it what the questions are. The normal procedure is for the hon. Member to say that he is referring to question number so-and-so. Hon. Members will have to cooperate with the Chair and we have to remember that the Chair has said to be brief and we should not be prolonging the thing unnecessarily, if there needs to be a comment, give it quickly and table the document.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just quickly detail the trips that were taken over the last year. First of all, Clarenville, Grand Falls, Upper Island Cove, Quebec, Saskatoon, Stephenville, Grand Falls, Yukon, Brigus, Clarke's Beach, South River, Bay Roberts, Avondale, Norman's Cove, Chapel Arm, Summerside, Stephenville, Avondale, Cox Cove, Badger's Quay, Twillingate, Grand Falls - Windsor, Great Humber Joint Councils Meeting in Jackson's Arm, Conception Bay, Twillingate, New Brunswick, Placentia, Corner Brook, Summerside, Irishtown, St. Mary's, -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair really sees no significance in the hon. Member reading out everything. The only comment which should be made when presenting this is something that needs further clarification. The Minister should not get into reading the whole thing if it does nothing to enlighten the question asked.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Okay, Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that there are about another ten or twelve trips in addition to the ones that I listed.

Mr. Speaker in total there were thirty trips out of St. John's, four of those to the mainland. When you consider, as I mentioned these were three former ministries, four trips to the mainland for ministerial meetings is not too bad, it is a little more than one per former ministry. Mr. Speaker, I would hate to compare the thirty trips and divide that by the three former ministries, which would be ten per ministry, compare that to the previous government. I would hate to even attempt to compare and go back. I would not do that, I would not want to embarrass the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this, I have to apologize to the House because with 500 municipalities to look after, I should be visiting these municipalities more and in the future I will certainly attempt to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House are very clear. In Question Period, questions are to be brief and answers are to be similarly brief. Similarly, there is a provision Your Honour has ruled many times, when questions are too lengthy and too detailed Your Honour has ruled that the question, because it is lengthy and detailed, should be placed on the Order Paper because it automatically requires a lengthy answer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that simply implies quite logically that if a question is too long in detail to be asked in Question Period, then the answer is too long in detail to be given in the House as well. That is why it is placed on the Order Paper. The Minister has an opportunity to research the detail, to provide the detail in writing to the House of Assembly and table it.

A Minister is given the courtesy of a few moments to explain and to enlarge on his answer but not to sit here and laboriously read out and bore the House of Assembly with a lot of detail that is in writing. It is an affront, an insult to the House, an abuse of the privileges of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we are just taking a precaution in the event that those who have had the questions written for them, who do not fully understand them, who are tabling them in the House, can have them explained to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

MR. FUREY: Some of these people have asked extremely complex questions, some of them very specific, and they require an explanation. It is not enough to just put down on paper, (a), (b), (c), (d), unless you explain it for certain Members in this Chamber. Some of them have a certain level of understanding, others have another level of understanding, we just want to make sure they completely and fully understand these very complex answers.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order.

Unfortunately, despite what hon. Members might say, the rules are not clear with respect to this particular item. It has never been ruled on before but the Chair is trying with great difficulty to try and advise Ministers, in particular, precisely as to what they should be saying. The Chair has said they should be brief, and should not attempt to try to abuse the rules of the House, to get down over the items as quickly as possible and only explain insomuch as explanation is necessary. I tell hon. Members present that there are a lot more rules for answers on the Order Paper than just because of their length. That is not the only reason why they are there. They are there, because in many cases, a Minister is not expected to be able to have these figures, or statistics, from the top of their heads. I say to hon. Members again that the Chair is trying with great difficulty to train the House, if you will, into what we should be doing here, and if I take it by precedent I have a lot of levity and a lot of flexibility, but the Chair is going to try and interpret it for the way the rules ought to be.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I will very quickly sum up. About one more sentence should do it. I was saying when I was interrupted that with some 500-odd municipalities to look after in Municipal Affairs alone it is very important that I get around the Province, the Island portion and Labrador, more than I have been doing, so I want to apologize to the House for that, because I have not been travelling as much as I would liked to have travel. I am determined throughout the next year to travel more throughout the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to Question No.30 on the Order Paper I would like to lay on the table of the House a list of trips taken by me as Minister of Justice and Attorney General in the last year.

Petitions

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with pleasure I rise in my place today, and I suppose with hope that I still think that it might be adhered to, or addressed, in presenting a petition from 984 people living in the Town of Wedgewood Park. I have to be truthful and say that two days ago, at least, when the Minister brought in his amalgamation resolution I thought to myself, well, this is where it ends. But, Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Premier yesterday I beg to differ. I think this resolution that the Minister speaks of had some mistakes in it and I think that because of those mistakes I believe that the people of Wedgewood Park have a right for their situation to be addressed.

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

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have announced that it will introduce legislation calling for the annexation of the Town of Wedgewood Park by the City of St. John's, and

WHEREAS the Provincial Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs established a criteria that was to govern any amalgamation of communities in the northeast Avalon region, and set up independent commissioners to determine the feasibility of any such measures, and

WHEREAS the town of Wedgewood Park presented to the independent Provincial Government appointed commission a sound and rational proposal to maintain autonomy for the Town, based on the financial planning and service criteria as set forth by Government, and based on the fact that the town already pays its fair share of regional services and its annexation will not provide financial savings for the City of St John's, and

WHEREAS the Commission upon clear analysis of the case presented to the Town of Wedgewood Park has strongly recommended to Government that the best option for the future municipal structure in the area is for Wedgewood Park to maintain its autonomy, and

WHEREAS the residents of Wedgewood Park have overwhelmingly stated their opposition to the annexation of their community we the undersigned hereby petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and individual Members of the House of Assembly to act as follows, that they move to ensure the Town of Wedgewood Park continues as the vibrant, fiscally responsible and separate municipality that its citizens have worked so hard to develop. That is the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the amalgamation process, as defined by both the Premier and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, was supposed to be fair, unbiased and independent. It was the Minister of Municipal Affairs who appointed the commission to seek the needs of the area and to seek the aspirations and desires of the residents. During that period, I, like many other residents of in the Northeast Avalon, attended many of their meetings. I remember distinctly, being at the Radisson with the Town of Wedgewood Park and hearing their submission. Mr. Speaker, the submission dealt with what is right for the ordinary people whom I, like every other Member of this House, represent.

The recommendations of that commission said that Wedgewood Park should be treated as a model community, a model to the rest of the Island and Labrador and, perhaps, even across Canada. I have stated over and over that in 1977, no one wanted Wedgewood Park. People went in there on their own with enthusiasm and desire to make a place for themselves and their children and grandchildren. That is what they have done, and they want it to stay as such.

I appeal to the Government, today, to all the Members of Government, in particular the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to accede to their request. It has nothing to do in a financial way -

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, if it was a financial aid to the City of St. John's, then perhaps we could see it. If it was done in an overall way, I could see it. But there is no financial aid to St. John's in amalgamating Wedgewood Park with St. John's. And, on moral grounds, I, today, ask the Premier and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to again look at the situation. There are 1,400 people in Wedgewood Park who ask, today - I am asking for them - that the Premier and the Minister reconsider the amalgamation of Wedgewood Park and leave those 1,400 people the happy people that they are today. They are happy people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand to support the petition presented by my colleague from St. John's East Extern. I believe what we have seen today, from the petition presented by my colleague, and what we have seen and heard in the past couple of days, is amalgamation gone wrong.

The concept of amalgamation is something with which I do not think a whole lot of people would disagree, but there is a right way and a wrong way of approaching amalgamation, and this Government has chosen to travel the road in the wrong direction. I believe, if there is an example of how amalgamation can be done in a very co-operative way, even though it will take time, it has to be the amalgamation of Grand Falls - Windsor. That approach was the right way. There was consultation over the years, for many years. I think it probably took ten or fifteen years. These two towns came together when they were ready to come together, and there is no doubt in my mind that they will derive benefits from that amalgamation. But it was done the right way and for the right reasons, because the people - the people - decided. And what we have seen from this Government, Mr. Speaker, is no one listening to the people of this Province, and particularly, the people who are to be amalgamated. The Government chose not to listen to the people, and if there is one case in point, it has to be Wedgewood Park. It is not the Member representing Wedgewood Park, it is not the Leader of the Opposition, it is not the Premier, it was the people who were appointed, namely the commissioners, who brought in the recommendation to this Government. `You appointed me to bring in a recommendation on Wedgewood Park, and here it is, Mr. Government, here it is. Do not amalgamate Wedgewood Park.' What did the Government do? They tore it up. They tore it up, Mr. Speaker. It cost thousands of dollars, no doubt, for this Government and the towns to have these commissioners go out and listen to what has been said. They brought in the recommendation, and the Government ignored the recommendation.

If Governments are going to set up some sort of smoke screen to make out that is what Government wants, and if the right people are not chosen, then there is something wrong with the process. In this case, the Minister of Municipal Affairs appointed his assistant deputy ministers to travel this Province, I would suggest, with instructions, in many cases, to bring back the recommendations they wanted, and that is where it is wrong. What this Government should have done, Mr. Speaker, is appointed independent people to bring in recommendations for the groupings, not someone who works in the next office to the Minister every day and every five or ten minutes when the Minister presses his telephone and says, `Tell the ADM I would like to see him for a few minutes', within a second he is there. That is not independence, Mr. Speaker. It is the senior employee of this Government, without union protection, without any protection, whatsoever, that they have sent around this Province to bring back recommendations. Now, that is wrong. That is wrong. Perception -

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

MR. TOBIN: I know that. Perception is reality in this case. In the case of Wedgewood Park, we brought in a recommendation that the Minister did not like, but in the case of some other place, they may bring in one he does like. And whatever the case is, Mr. Speaker, perception is reality. And I suggest that all of the groupings have had that same problem. If there is one complaint that I have heard constantly and consistently, it was the fact that the Government appointed assistant deputy ministers to bring in recommendations. What happened when they brought in recommendations? When they brought in recommendations, if they liked them, good, and if they did not like them, the same thing happened as happened to Wedgewood Park.

Mr. Speaker, that may sound somewhat contradictory, but the concept - and I want to say it again - the concept of amalgamation, I have no problem with, none whatsoever, but it has to be done with the people supporting it; and the people lost trust and belief and any faith in the concept of amalgamation, when this Government appointed a senior bureaucrat to be part of the public hearings. We see him come in here to this area. We know, Mr. Speaker, on that side of the House, right now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say to this Government that if there was one mistake, it was the way they brought in these people, the assistant deputy ministers, to make a ruling. I would suggest, and I beg - in the absence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I will ask the President of Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker - that they reconsider the approach they have taken, and consider giving the people the opportunity to become more involved than they have been in the past, and to let the people of Wedgewood Park live in the community that they developed, that they nourished, that they brought along to what it is today, that everybody wants. If they would that, and when the people of Wedgewood Park are prepared to expand and to move in with the City of St. John's, then amalgamation will be approved.

Orders of the Day

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

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Evidence Act." (Bill No. 4)

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, a point of order, if the Minister does not mind.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: My recollection is that on the last day, the Member for St. John's East adjourned the debate, and I was just wondering if he knows that Orders of the Day are called. I think his un-elected Leader has gone out to check to see if he is there. Maybe if the Minister were not so anxious, we might, out of courtesy, just take thirty seconds in case he comes in and gets upset because we are trampling on his rights or something.

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

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that point of order, all hon. Members know the order in which things are done in the House, and as we go through Answers to Questions, and Petitions that very quickly, Orders of the Day are called. We cannot postpone Orders of the Day because a particular Member does not happen to be in the House. I know it probably would be better if he were here because he had indicated in terms of votes that we would make some kinds of allowances for the Member for St. John's East. He has had a couple of minutes now to get back in, but he is not here, so, Mr. Speaker, I guess we have no choice but to go on with second reading.

The hon. Member is now entering the House and I suppose we could, out of courtesy, extend him the time he needs to finish his comments on the Evidence Act, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I adjourned debate on second reading on the Evidence Act. Perhaps the Speaker could indicate how much time is remaining, or the Clerk may know how much is remaining of my time. I would like to know.

MR. SPEAKER: Eighteen minutes.

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

I was interested, Mr. Speaker, in making some remarks on this bill because I find that this legislation is being presented to this House without, I think, really serious consideration of the implications for this Province, and for patients and patients' rights in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which is really about the balance of power. We have had a couple of speeches from the Government side on this bill, one by the Minister of Health and one by the Minister of Justice. In his speech, the Minister of Justice quite rightly recognized that he had a particular problem with the principles involved. He said it was not a piece of legislation that he was totally comfortable with, because it was a piece of legislation that took away the rights to obtain information and evidence in a court about matters which are of great importance to patients in hospitals, who, perhaps, had reason to believe - or were not sure, as to whether or not proper procedures were carried out, resulting in difficulties which led to court action or court cases.

Mr. Speaker, he was right in being concerned about this legislation, and I contrast his misgivings and concern with a statement and a speech that was made by the Minister of Health on the issue. Now, this is a matter of great sensitivity and a matter of principle, Mr. Speaker, but the Minister of Health treated it as a partisan matter, what would have to be regarded as a positive Government measure to improve the health care system in this Province. Well, Mr. Speaker, the people who presented it to the Special Committee were not terribly convincing.

Mr. Speaker, the principal reason given for the introduction of this piece of legislation in this House - well, there are two reasons. One, a number of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada have it - that was one reason - have similar exemptions. And the second reason was that if you did not give an exemption to doctors and other medical practitioners for this purpose, they would not participate in a process that would improve the health care system and the health care procedures in their respective hospitals.

Now, that argument is distasteful. What the medical profession and the medical professionals are saying to the Government is that if you do not give us a special exemption, a special privilege, then our members will not participate in these processes. That is what they said to the Committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) legal aid.

MR. HARRIS: I do not know whether it has anything to do with lawyers and legal aid. But, let me tell the hon. Member, if the President of Treasury Board had the misfortune of having an operation and coming away from that operation with something wrong with him that he did not have before he went in, and if he were trying to find out, as a result of being disabled by this operation, whether or not there was a responsibility on the hospital or the doctor that could take over the costs to him of suffering from the disability that he then received, if the Member were left paralysed, left without some of his bodily functions working, left unable to earn a living, or if a member of his family suffered irreparable damage - for example, I mean, it is easy enough to happen, a loss of oxygen to the brain, and he wanted to find out whether or not it was possible that the deep pockets of the insurance companies that insure doctors and hospitals, and the medical profession, could compensate him and his family for the costs of this mistake, or whether he, himself would have to bear the burden, or suffer, himself, or have his family or child suffer without any compensation, if he wanted to find that out he would have to rely on one of these lawyers that he might like to laugh at from time to time. And that lawyer will tell him - as a lawyer will be required to do - that it is very difficult to find out information with respect to a medical malpractice suit. And that lawyer would tell the hon. Member, the President of Treasury Board, that in order to find out, you would have to go up against a very well financed legal help on the other side, and that very well financed legal help is financed by an organization called the Canadian Medical Protective Association.

And they will pay substantial monies - whatever it costs - to fight against claims and to take part in the litigation on the other side and represent the interests of the establishment, of the doctors, of the medical boards, of the medical profession and the hospitals, against an individual who is trying to seek redress.

Now, in this relationship between the big organization and the individual trying to find out what the alternatives are, there is a balance of power. And that balance of power - even in the ordinary course of events - is really in the favour of the doctors, the medical establishment. Because you are dealing with on the other side, people who do not know very much about the medical profession, about the procedures, about how they work, about what changes might be made in the procedures or whether the procedures that were followed twenty years ago still sufficiently meet the standard of care that would be applied. And an individual trying to find that out has to rely, in many cases, on experts, other medical professionals, other medical doctors.

And, Mr. Speaker, common sense would tell you, but experience tells even more, that it is difficult to find a medical doctor to say that another medical doctor's actions were perhaps negligent or did not meet the standard of care, that is difficult enough on an ordinary day-to-day experience, that is difficult enough.

But experience also tells that it is very difficult to find someone, and also very expensive to find a means of assessing whether or not a claim might be present; in order to do so, you have to rely on whatever information you can get to hand and it may be, that having received the information, having had an opportunity to review any reports or assessments or evaluations that may have been done, that a lawyer could feel comfortable advising a client: well look, it seems that everything that was done here was done in accordance with the standards of the day; in fact, there was no one who had any criticisms of it, it was reviewed by all hands and nobody even suggested any alternative procedures or, in fact they perhaps did suggest alternative procedures, but these were procedures that are not followed in this hospital, they are not followed in any hospital in Canada at the moment, they are being introduced for a first time in some other jurisdiction so therefore, the standard that would be applied in this particular case was met and you do not really have a claim, you have to suffer the loss that you bear, yourself.

At least, the individual who has suffered or feels aggrieved by what happened at a medical hospital or in a medical procedure, at least that person has the satisfaction of knowing that they do not have a case, that they can at least rest that they have pursued all means to see whether or not they could be compensated by these professionals or insurance companies, which are basically set up to provide insurance when a doctor makes a mistake, and, Mr. Speaker, we do know that doctors make mistakes, just as lawyers or accountants or politicians for that matter, make mistakes for which they are responsible for in law.

A person driving a motor vehicle who is careless and makes a mistake by going through a stop sign when he or she should not, or makes a wrong turn, the insurance system is set up to recover for those mistakes and to share the loss so that the person who ends up being struck by a motor vehicle, does not have to bear the loss of employment, the loss of enjoyment of life or bear the pain of suffering on his or her own. That loss is spread out amongst those people who bear it by payment of insurance premiums and by insurance companies meeting that loss when the time comes.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the same principle applies to medical practitioners and hospitals who have taken on a very big responsibility when they take care of the life and health of an individual in an extreme situation such as, where a person is in a hospital for an operation or procedure. We are talking, Mr. Speaker, about somebody: perhaps the Member for St. John's South is undergoing an operation and he is unconscious, he is under a total anesthetic, he cannot see what they are doing, whether they are doing it right or whether they are doing it wrong. Even if he could see, he would not know whether they were doing it right or wrong, so why should he not have the advantage, at least if he is trying to find out after, if something went wrong, whether it was the fault of the doctor or whether it was just chance or just an accident, nobody's fault; why should he not have that right?

Well, Mr. Speaker, by passing this piece of legislation, what the Legislature is being asked to do, is, to say to the Member for St. John's South: no, no, you cannot have access to that information because if we allowed you to have access to that information, our doctors would not talk about operations, would not try to improve things, would not assess their procedures and would not try to make them better. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough from the medical profession.

I do not think that is good enough a standard of ethical behaviour from the medical profession, if what they are saying to this House is that we do not have sufficient power to control our members to require them ethically to participate in these kinds of committees and they have them spelled out in the Bill.

And that is another issue, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that the Minister of Justice, when he introduced the Bill was even sufficiently clear as to what it is he is excluding from evidence in court, and not just in court, it is for discoveries for what they call interrogatories or any other legal proceeding that is involved, access to all of this information is excluded for any purpose related to three types of committees which they refer.

One is called the Provincial perinatal committee, the other is a quality assurance committee and the other is a peer review committee. None of these committees is defined in the legislation; they define witness, they define legal proceeding but they do not define these committees and it is not very clear, Mr. Speaker, what these committees are, or whether or not the hospitals' lawyers or the unseen people in this Canadian Medical Professional Association, who do not even tell the Newfoundland Medical Association how many claims they are dealing with.

The Newfoundland Medical Association, Mr. Speaker, has had that information withheld from it by this Association. They do not tell their members how many claims they are processing - the Newfoundland Medical Association. I do not think the Department of Health knows how many claims there are against doctors for medical malpractice in this Province. They do not keep records, they have no way of knowing. The Canadian Medical Protective Association which pays the legal fees of lawyers to defend the hospitals, they do not tell the Newfoundland Medical Association what is going on.

So it is not the doctors who are going to claim this defence, this exclusion. It is the lawyers for the insurance company, the Canadian Medical Protective Association. They are the ones who are going to be claiming it in practice. And they may not know any more what a quality assurance committee is than the Minister of Justice. But what they will be doing certainly is trying to characterize any discussion - about what happened when the Member for St. John's South's theoretical operation went wrong - that might have gone on about that - what happened in this operation? - that is all going to be characterized as a peer review committee. That is all going to be characterized as a quality assurance committee.

If we do not have - not all of it obviously - but they are going to try to characterize what went on - or what discussions, reports or recommendations that might have been rising out of a mistake that may have been made - those things as part of the peer review process or part of the quality assurance process, in an effort to deny to an individual who might want to pursue a claim - or even find out whether he or she has one - they are going to be used to deny access to that information.

That is fundamentally wrong. It is fundamentally wrong to do that because it shifts the balance of power toward - those who are powerful are given a privilege of secrecy over what may be, and in many cases would be, vital information to a patient who has suffered as a result of something going wrong in an operation or medical procedure. And that is why the Newfoundland Human Rights Association came to the Legislative Committee and said to the Legislative Committee that they thought that it was wrong. That it was a violation of patients' rights and that they did not support this legislation.

Now I want the Minister of Justice to tell the House what review his Department did of the other jurisdictions which have similar type legislation. What I suspect is that the other jurisdictions that have this legislation were those jurisdictions - particularly the American jurisdictions, where the cost of doctors' and medical insurance are very high, because they are a very litigious lot in the United States. You can sue anybody for anything in the United States, and people like to do it. Lawyers take on the cases and go for big settlements and it has made the practice of medicine in the United States - which is a very privatized affair - very expensive and very difficult.

But as a result of these pressures and the lobbying done by the American Medical Association and other medical groups and hospital groups in the United States, they managed to convince a number of legislatures in the US - I do not know, twenty, thirty, thirty-five or forty of them, I am not sure exactly how many, a number of states in any event - through very expensive lobbying efforts, which is the procedure that happens in the States, to pass similar type legislation. A number of jurisdictions in Canada - not the Province of Ontario - and that has nothing to do with the current Government of Ontario. The Government of Ontario has been lobbied about this for years, as has the Newfoundland Government. The former government had the good sense to turn it down before, to their credit, to turn down the special privilege for the medical profession. This Government seems to have bowed to the lobbying effort and are going to put it in.

And I think it is a retrogressive step. It is a hiding away from the truth. If the truth is that the medical professionals will not talk about quality assurance, will not engage themselves in peer review, will not do things to improve the medical procedures and practices in this Province without this legislation, then they should face up to the truth and do something about it by changing around their ethical procedures and having some pressure put on them from those quarters instead of making special privileges for them in this House, which act to the detriment of patients and patients' families in the event that something goes wrong.

Those are my comments on the Bill. I think it is bad legislation, retrogressive, and I think that the Minister of Justice's misgivings about it ought to give rise to a reconsideration by the Government and a further look at this. And I think that upon reflection the Government would have to see that this is a bad move and a retrogressive step. And I ask them to withdraw this legislation and give it further consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to have a few remarks on Bill 4 as well, the Act to Amend the Evidence Act. Now, I listened to the Minister introducing the legislation a few days ago and actually I do not think - the Minister gave no justification whatsoever for the Government bringing in this Bill. The Minister of Health, while I disagree with him but at least to his credit, tried in some way to justify the need for this piece of legislation. But the Minister bringing it forth, the Minister of Justice in his introduction, gave none. I do not know if he will at all when he rises to close the debate.

But I for one - and that is why I am standing - want it recorded in this House - even for the sake of some time in the future if anything happens as I suspect it will as a result of this legislation - that I am against this piece of legislation. I was a Member of a Cabinet that was lobbied years ago by some people in the medical profession - I do not think it is all of them, by the way - to bring in this piece of legislation, and we as a government refused. And I think we did the right thing.

Why do doctors, people in the medical profession, need this kind of protection? The Minister of Health the other day tried to argue that it was for the protection of the client, the patient. Well, that is the most ludicrous argument I ever heard. But what is there? I mean, there are not many cases of privilege and exemption from prosecution or giving evidence that we find in our society today. You find the solicitor-client relationship, you find a confessor-type-clergy relationship in certain areas. And that is about all I can think of.

And why therefore would the medical profession and the Government, consider bringing in this piece of legislation? What is wrong with people who have discussed medical matters in a peer review committee having to testify on those matters in a court proceeding if a court proceeding happened to come out of some particular medical happening? What is wrong with it? Absolutely nothing. Why should those people be exempt from the law? I mean, there will have to be a very powerful argument made to convince me that there is a special reason that the medical profession should have this right that practically nobody else in our society has.

I remember the late Dr. Twomey arguing passionately against this proposed exemption. And God only knows, as a medical practitioner for forty odd years or something in this Province, well known and respected, I suppose one could even say 'loved' by thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as a medical practitioner. I remember him - as a rookie Cabinet Minister I remember Dr. Twomey passionately arguing against his colleagues who were speaking on behalf of the NMA, arguing against giving this exemption to people in the medical profession.

Now we have this Government bringing it in. Why is it that this Government is catering to this request? The Minister has an obligation - the Minister who is bringing it in. Not the Minister of Health who got up and ranted and raved like some kind of a madman the other day. But the Minister who is bringing it in has a responsibility to tell this House in clear, certain terms why it is that this legislation is necessary. It certainly cannot be necessary from a patient point of view, from a client point of view. It is only going to make it more difficult. It will make it more difficult if there happened to be the need or some person perceives the need for a malpractice suit. I would think this would make it more difficult. You are not going to be able to summons the people on the peer review committees or the quality assurance committees. Not going to be able to do that any more. Is this a way to use the authority of this Legislature to make it more difficult for ordinary human beings to sue in a malpractice suit? Is that the intent of the legislation?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, they cannot go testify about what was said in the committee meetings.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Yes it is, that is the whole point (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, this is - well, I mean, if that is the case perhaps the Explanatory Notes should be changed. The amendment "would exclude from legal proceedings information on file with the Provincial Perinatal Committee, a quality assurance committee or a peer review committee." Now, does the Government House Leader know - the man who is responsible for the legislative agenda for the Government - what the Bill says?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, I know (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, I just read it out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Blessed Lord. I mean, how much clearer can you be? The "amendment to The Evidence Act would exclude from legal proceedings information on file with the Provincial Perinatal Committee, a quality assurance committee or a peer review committee."

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: You cannot -

MS. VERGE: But it gives them immunity from repeating what they said in the committee meetings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: But why? Why not (Inaudible) -

MR. RIDEOUT: Let me go on, I say to the President of Treasury Board, and read the rest of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker: "The Bill would also excuse physicians or other persons acting on behalf of the preceding committees from having to testify in court in connection with information obtained by a committee in the normal course of the committee's duties." Now, why? Why is that necessary?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, just because you say it is. Why is it necessary to give this exemption to this group of people in the medical profession that other people in other professions - I do not know if they are seeking, but certainly we have not given it to them. Why? There has to be some reason for this. That the NMA would put any great time into lobbying to have it - and as they have spent years at it, as far as I know. I mean, they lobbied us when we were a government every time they met with us. And they have been lobbying in other jurisdictions that have not done it, for example in Ontario.

MS. VERGE: Clyde promised one of the NMA executives that he would do this.

MR. RIDEOUT: Ah, there is the answer, is it? The answer is that the Premier promised one of the NMA executive members that the Government would do it. Without any consideration I suppose.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Dr. Young (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I do not know. Did they fall victim to the lobby? I mean, sometimes there is nothing wrong with being the last person out, I say to the Member for Carbonear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: No, we are not. But sometimes it is not wrong to be in that position.

MS. VERGE: Ontario does not have it.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, Ontario does not have it, it has already been mentioned, and they are -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ontario will have it within a matter of - in a couple of months.

MR. RIDEOUT: How can you say that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) order paper (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, is that a fact? That is a fact, is it? You are sure of that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes I am.

MR. RIDEOUT: I see. But I do not care if the whole world has it. I think the question is still operative, why is it necessary? Can somebody make a logical, sane argument why it is necessary? The Minister of Justice made no argument when he brought the Bill in as to why it was necessary. He mumbled out a few introductory remarks and sat down. The Minister of Health got up in a tirade and turned on everybody who has ever had anything to do with government in this Province in the last forty odd years. He gave no explanation why it was necessary.

So it is now incumbent on the Minister of Justice who brought in the Bill to tell us why it is necessary. Personally, I am worried about it, personally as an individual Member of this House. I was not convinced when I was lobbied, when I was in a position to influence the Government legislative agenda. I was not convinced then, and I am not convinced now. I happen to believe, unless somebody can convince me otherwise, that it is bad legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister will.

MR. RIDEOUT: The Minister will? Well, he will have his chance now, because I just want to put on the record how I feel about it personally, because I think that some day, somewhere, this bill is going to come back to haunt the people who will vote for it today.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to have a few comments on Bill 4. Mr. Speaker, I am dubious and have some reservations as it pertains to this Bill. Why I have those reservations, Mr. Speaker - and I want to speak directly now to the Minister of Justice. I listened to the opening remarks of the Minister of Justice the other day, and they stuck with me. I want to say to the Minister of Justice, that if he believes in his heart that this legislation could be harmful to any one individual in this Province, then I think the obligation is on the Minister of Justice to defer this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has brought in some legislation, and I find no difficulty with most of what he has done. He is a young man who seems to have his head screwed on right.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is brilliant.

MR. PARSONS: Perhaps he is brilliant, and I will accord him that, and respect him - but I hope that in his brillance he will accede to my request, that if he thinks in his heart there is any chance of anyone being hurt by this legislation, then he should withdraw it immediately. I really believe that, and I am saying it with all sincerity, because I have to quote the Minister, "And it took quite some time before I was convinced that it was the right thing to do." I find it very hard to get through to me that a Minister, with some doubts, could bring in a piece of legislation, especially when it deals with the health of our people.

I am a bit leery, too, as to why the medical profession, if their peers -

AN HON. MEMBER: Not all of them are looking for it.

MR. PARSONS: Not all of them are looking for it. I have a couple of friends who are doctors, who do not seem to have any great need for this legislation. Again, I am not sure if the Premier promised it or not, but I hope, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the reason why it is being brought in.

The Minister of Health got up, and I was surprised at the Minister of Health. I really was. You know, when you look at the situations that we have occurring, in some instances, through our medical profession - not very often, but there have been instances in the Province, that we all know of and can relate to - and then to have the Minister of Health speak downright on partisan politics. Mr. Speaker, I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the Minister of Health got up in that tirade and went on with what he went on with. All of us, here in this Legislature, have respect for individuals who go to hospitals.

The excuse is being offered here, Mr. Speaker, that if this is not passed, then some doctors would not press forward. From what I gather, they would not take chances. Mr. Speaker, if I go to the hospital and there is a chance to be taken, then I want that doctor to come to me and tell me that there is a chance to be taken, and I want to be the person to say, yes or no.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: One second, now.

This is what I get from it, that if we do not pass this Bill, those doctors might be reluctant to take some chances or they might be reluctant to do the things that they would find, within this legislation, normal to do. I take exception to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong bill.

MR. PARSONS: No, it is not the wrong bill. I say to the Minister of Health, if you had not gotten up in that tirade - and I hope the Minister of Justice, who I have a lot of respect for, I hope that the Minister of Justice addresses my concerns. My concerns are sincere, and I ask the Minister of Justice before he brings this legislation to pass that he explain to me that I have my thoughts or my concerns unfounded. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

If he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I spoke the other day, I indicated my concerns and also my support for the Bill, and some things that have been said here today perhaps do not reflect accurately what I said at that time. As a lawyer, I indicated to have an aversion to offering to any group of people in the Province an exemption to the general rule that everyone in a proceeding is a compellable witness. And I indicated at that time that because of that reluctance it took me quite some time to assent because I was a party to signing the Cabinet paper and to ask Cabinet to consider this and to eventually approve it. My reluctance, as I said, was as a lawyer and because of the general legal principle that any person who in a matter has any evidence to offer should come forward, if they are not prepared to do it voluntarily be compelled to do it.

On the other hand, as I said the other day, and I specifically want to deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for St. John's East Extern which I believe is a legitimate point and one which I think expressed in a very heartfelt manner. It was my concern as well as to whether or not this would in any way cause harm to any people who want to advance their cases before the courts, which I suppose reflects my background in the legal area as opposed to a background in the health care sector, and I have come to the conclusion that it would not. The reason I say that is that there is nothing in this Bill that stops documents or persons from being compellable in a court proceeding. If you note, for example, it does specifically say that in sub-section 3 on page 4 that no report, statement -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Okay, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Sub-section 5 indicates that all the original medical or hospital records pertaining to a person are compellable. Compellable is a word that means, in point of law, that if there is a document or a person who can give evidence they can be forced to be brought to court or to be produced as the case may be. Really what you have is this does not subtract from the evidence that is available now. In other words, there is nothing that now exists that will be taken away. The difficulty that we have and the only reason that I have supported this Bill and brought it to the House in conjunction with my learned colleague, the Minister of Health, is that these committees that are there for valid reason in hospitals that are mentioned in the act, the quality assurance which are meant to bring up the level of health care and also the peer review committees which are meant to be there to see how well or how poorly doctors are performing are not now functioning. Now I will tell you frankly that the Bill does not speak well of our medical community. Here we are, in order to get them to participate in committees which they should voluntarily do, we have to bring in a Bill giving exemption to them so that they can freely criticize their fellow doctors and also their health care professionals. I frankly think that, in a sense, it is a shame that we have to do that, but in practical reality it is important for the Province and the health care system to have these committees working and, on balance, if this is what it takes perhaps we should do it and try it. But the thing to bear in mind from a legal standpoint for any lawyer who had to carry cases to court, and I can tell you frankly that a significant portion of my practice was civil litigation. I had the problem from time to time of suing doctors, and I found, quite frankly, that it was difficult if not impossible to get a doctor to give an opinion against another doctor in the Province. So I fully appreciate the reluctance that some Members have expressed in giving doctors any greater privilege than now exist, and I recognize the expense if you are a lawyer on behalf of a client, particularly an indigent client in trying to get an expert opinion from outside the Province to support your claim. But nevertheless the thing to bear in mind is that right now what we are saying is that to the extent that these peer review committees and quality assurance committees meet, the things that are discussed there cannot be forced to be brought forward in a court. The thing to remember is that right now they are not working. There is no evidence now that is existing in that form or fashion so that by passing this we are not precluding or taking away, we are not subtracting from the evidence that exists because all of the hospital records can still be produced. As well the doctors who may or may not testify can all be brought before a court and asked any question at all about the nature of their proceedings and that sort of thing. The only thing that is protected is that you cannot ask them questions nor can you have access to whatever they discussed at the particular committee that reviewed their conduct.

The reason that is given for that, and that I have heard, and that I accept, is that when doctors are in this forum they offer other types of procedures. For instance, they say, did you consider doing this, or did you consider doing that? The rationale that is given is not that this might necessarily be better, but in the context of did you examine it, maybe we should have tried that. So it is a process of self-examination, and their concern is that if they are to carry that out thoroughly they do not want to have that taken out of context and this sort of thing. I do not entirely agree with it, but in terms of the social necessity of trying to improve our health care system, and the advantage of having a functioning quality assurance and peer review committee system in our hospitals, I believe it is appropriate that we consider this exemption. As I say I do not support it in point of principle in the sense that I think doctors should freely do this, but in terms of a practical reality of trying to improve our health care system. If this is the only way we can get these important committees to function, it is advisable to do so solely on the basis that these are things that are not now functioning and there is no evidence that is there now that we would be precluding. If I may address the specific concern of the Member for St. John's East Extern, if, for example, as part of this Bill we were suppressing medical documentation and said that any medical records or anything that are in the hospital now would not be available in court, I would not support the Bill because we would be subtracting from it. All we are doing, I think, in this process is taking away, or not making available in court, opinions that doctors might freely offer of a tentative nature, or of a self-examination nature, in terms of assessing the conduct of their peers, which is not to say if you subpoena a doctor to the court that you could ask the doctor the same questions. The only thing you cannot ask the doctor is whether or not he, or she, offered the same opinion at either of these committees, or if, as well, the doctor might have expressed that opinion, or if it might have been the subject of conversation at these committees. In other words everything that goes on at a peer review committee might very well be produced and talked about in a court, but not in the same way. In other words, you could say: look, we have the record from the peer review committee and here it is, but there is nothing to preclude you from asking the same questions, and so on. As I may say, and you may take this as an example, here in the House of Assembly issues are raised and when we go outside we do interviews and we are asked the same questions. It is a similar analogy. The only difference would be, as previously here, the press did not have access to the recordings that were made, but that is not to say that the press could not ask the same questions and we could not give the same answers outside. They are a similar analogy and I suggest that what is being lost to the public is something that does not now exist. I can tell you frankly that I did have considerable experience as a civil litigator and I recognize the difficulty of those sorts of suits but an important thing to bear in mind is that there is nothing being taken away. Another issue that I am told had some impact on my considerations in the matter was well, is that it is an important factor in hospital accreditation across the country that the hospital have in place functioning peer review and quality assurance committees. I am told there was significant concern as to whether or not our hospitals would continue to receive that accreditation if those peer review committees were not able to function. I think it is for that reason as well, and that as one of my colleagues mentioned in another forum, the Member for Carbonear mentioned to me that eight of the other ten provinces have already enacted this, and I think Ontario may be looking at it, the similar type of exemption. In bringing the legislation forward, as I indicated, I think it is fair for me to express my concerns and lay before the House, and I suppose the public of the Province, what my concerns were and why I have come to the conclusion I did. As a lawyer I have an aversion to granting exemptions but in the general interest of social policy in the Province I think it is a defensible exemption to be made. We do it in limited circumstances otherwise. For example, if you want to take the analogy further, why should what a client says to his or her lawyer be exempt from being produced in court, except for the fact that a lawyer, if he or she is to defend his or her client, must be able to learn everything there is, and you cannot undermine the person's right to self defence. But on another forum you could make a case that it should be able to be produced.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say in closing that I did have some misgivings but I have resolved those. I hope to some extent I have allayed some of the fears expressed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Humber Valley, and the Member for St. John's East who are in the House today. I think, notwithstanding these concerns, the thing to remember in doing this is that we are not subtracting anything from the evidence that is now available for any person who is injured in a hospital, or has any issue with the treatment afforded by a medical professional. All we are doing is saying if there is another level of evaluation carried out by a hospital, or in that hospital setting, whether it is among the doctors or the general hospital personnel, that those discussions themselves, and only in themselves, will not be available, so I suppose in answer to the question from the Member for St. John's East Extern, I frankly feel that, this does not in any way offer any harm to the members of the public. It certainly does not lessen the chances in litigation and my hope is, it will help us improve our health system by giving this privilege which is one that I do not think should be afforded to very many groups (inaudible).

I, therefore move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a Bill, "An Act To Amend The Evidence Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 4)

MR. BAKER: Order 11, Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 7.

Motion, second reading of a Bill, "An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting Pensions For The Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary And The St. John's Fire Department And The Staff Of Her Majesty's Penitentiary." (Bill No. 7)

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

Before I recognize the hon. Minister of Finance, I would like to advise hon. Members of the questions for the Late Show at 4:30, and question No.1 is from the hon. Member for Grand Falls, the Opposition House Leader, who is not satisfied with the answer from the Premier on Unemployment. The second question is from the hon. Member for Kilbride, he is not satisfied with the Premier's answer to my question concerning Amalgamation. The third Question is from the hon. Member for Humber East, who is a great writer: I am not satisfied with the Premier's response to my question about the Government's intentions regarding outstanding amalgamation proposals for municipalities outside the northeast Avalon area. I would like to discuss this question at the late show this afternoon, that is from the hon. Member for Humber East.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a privilege for me to introduce this particular Bill; it is one of the Bills that I would like to introduce but before doing so, I would like to say that I have just been handed a note saying that - and the Member for St. John's East will be very interested in this - that Moody's Investors Services, has just announced that Ontario is downgraded from Aaa to Aa (2). This is a two level down grade, Ontario is now below B.C. and Alberta which are both at Aa (1) at Moody's; Standard and Poors have not changed their rating. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious question and we will be discussing it later, but, to come back to Bill 7.

Bill 7, applies to our uniform services, to members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the St. John's Fire Department and the staff of Her Majesty's Penitentiary. What we have done in principle with this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is to come to grips in this Bill as we have in the Public Service Pensions Act Bill and also with the Teachers Pensions, we have come to grips with the serious unfunded liability of these plans, just as the Province's debt is a major concern of ours, so is this growing, unfunded liability, which up to this point has not been appropriately addressed and we have to address these. We cannot continue to live as if there were no tomorrow.

I do not know what has happened over the past few years, but it seems to me that since the second world war, people have been thinking about 'there will be no tomorrow', so it does not matter what you do today; whether you overspend or not, and that philosophy which has crept into the western societies over the past several years and which we are now coming to grips with, is really destroying the future; it is burdening the children and the grand children and the great grand children with the irresponsible behaviours of today.

Now I have great faith in the future of this Province, great faith in the future of this country, great faith in the future of this planet. It is not that there is no future and to heck with tomorrow, we have to be concerned about tomorrow, because the future has great potential, and in order to come to grips with the future, we must come to grips with the debts of the present and not destroy our future by overspending.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Now, what we are doing with this bill is coming to grips with three major principles. First, we are going to meet the current service costs. In other words, every year, the Government and the employees are going to share the costs of the additional pension benefits that accumulate as a result of another year's work. Up until now, we have not been paying for the debts that we have accumulated, and we must do so.

The other thing we want to do in this is to bring our pension legislation in tune with the federal pension tax reform proposals. The Federal Government has brought in certain tax reform proposals with respect to pensions. For instance, the 2 per cent accrual rate, rather than higher accrual rates, and certain other things, and we brought our pension plans in conformity to these federal regulations, in order for an employee to contribute to be able to have these deductions from their income tax, and so on.

And the third set of criteria, principles, if you like, that guided us in bringing in this bill, was the national pension reform consensus, where, on a national basis, it is generally agreed the consensus is that certain reforms are appropriate for pension plans, one of which is that survivors' benefits should be increased. And as I go through now, I will outline some of the changes that we are proposing in the Uniform Services Pension Plan. But, first, I should say, in order for Members to fully appreciate what is happening, that we have given members of the uniform services, who have nineteen years or more of pensionable service, the option to elect to stay with the old plan or to come to our reform plan. So, that option is only there for people who have nineteen years or more of pensionable service. We are not forcing them to get on the new plan, but if they choose to stay with the old plan, then we have to increase the contributions by them and by Government, in order to pay for the enhanced benefits under the old plan. But we will not be extending the option to everybody. Everybody else will move under the new plan.

Let me indicate some of the major changes. I do not want to get into the Committee stage at the moment and talk about what we normally talk about, the details, but I do want to point out some things for hon. members so that they could probably be prepared for that time when we get into Committee.

First of all, as in the Public Service Pension Plan, the new plan will increase survivors' benefits from 55 per cent to 60 per cent. That is part of the national pension reform consensus. People on the old plan, though, will continue with the 55 per cent benefit for survivors. So, when someone dies, the survivor gets 60 per cent of the pension - now, it is 55 per cent - and those who elect to remain on the old plan will stay at 55 per cent.

The new plan provides for the splitting of pension benefits upon marriage breakdown, and that is something we saw that we are introducing in the Public Service Pension Plan, as well. That benefit, the splitting of pension benefits upon marriage breakdown, is also going to apply to those members who elect to remain under the old plan.

We are going to be increasing employee contributions to the new Uniform Services Pension Plan by about 2.5 per cent, and that is contained in Section 6 of the bill. If members want to look at Section 6 of the bill, they will see that Section 6 indicates that the contribution has been raised, and that people who elect to remain on the old plan will pay an additional 3.5 per cent. So, the contribution rates for people who elect to remain on the old plan have gone up considerably, in order to cover the current service costs of that plan.

We have increased the cost to employees who wish to purchase prior pensionable services. That is covered under Section 10, too. That has been increased, so if anyone wants to buy up back time, they have to pay the reasonable cost of that back time.

We have reduced the vesting period. Up until now, a person had to have ten years in, in order to get any sort of a pension, whatever years, and now that has been reduced to five. The national reform concensus suggested that that eventually go down to two years, but, at the moment, we feel five years is an improvement. Hopefully, when we can, we might be able to afford to administer the plan with two years, but, at the moment, we are suggesting five years.

Section 19 (1) brings in the accrual rate, that from now on every year of pensionable salary will provide a 2 per cent increase in pension. Up until now, people in the uniform services have been compelled to retire, unless they are officers, after twenty-five years of service. Now, people are permitted to stay beyond that, if they wish.

Another change, is the computation of the salary under which a person is pensioned. That is contained under Sub-section (2) (l). Now, pensionable salary means the average of the best three years prior to retirement. Under the old plan, it was the highest level of salary, so that, if a person retired from the uniform services, the pension was calculated on the number of years times the last salary that the person earned, the salary at the last day of employment. That benefit has been reduced now, under the new plan, to take the average of three years, as it is in most other plans. Some of the plans are five years, but this particular one will be three, instead of now, where it is the last day.

So, we have retained disability retirements, as we have with the public service. So, if someone becomes disabled, they can still go out on a disability pension. We had thought, first, that we would bring in some form of insurance, which might be better. An insurance is better for some. If we had brought in an insurance plan, a young person, who had become disabled, would be able to go out with a very hefty insurance. But, if they have only a few years in, they will not get much of a disability pension. So, one of the things about a disability pension that is not good, is that a person who becomes disabled at a young age does not get much of a pension, whereas, if it were an insurance, it would be better. It was recommended to us by a study that we had carried out that, at this time, the cost of introducing such an insurance scheme, compulsory for everybody, would be a bit too high for us. So, we are going to forego that for the present, but perhaps we will revisit that later on, as the economy of the Province improves. At the moment, we are going to stick with the disability pension, which, for people who become disabled late in life, is much better than any other plan. We will be eliminating redundancy pensions once this becomes effective, and that is another change.

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous other details which I will not get into at the moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) now, you can do in Committee.

DR. KITCHEN: Alright, well, we will do it in Committee, but, in the interests of allowing other people to have their comments on this, Mr. Speaker, I will stop speaking, at the moment.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping the Minister would carry on with some more explanations of this bill, so I would not have to get up and bore the hon. Minister of Social Services to death. But, I guess, for forty-five minutes, at least, he is going to sit there and listen to some explanations of what is happening in this proposed change to the bill.

I understand the Minister's explanation for trying to get some control over unfunded liability in this bill, and it is very hard to argue against. But, what I do have problems with, are the people who have taken up employment with the three different branches that are affected by this Uniform Services Pensions Act. They have worked for different periods of time with the understanding that they have a certain pension benefit being built up every year that they are working. And the unfortunate part of this bill is that it is going to change in midstream, the plans of the people who accepted jobs some five, ten, fifteen and even up to twenty years ago.

Mr. Speaker, that does not seem fair to me. It certainly does not show a fairness and balance that this Premier always talks about. But when the hon. Minister was speaking first, he talked about the great spenders ever since the Second World War, that everyone wanted to continue to spend. The greatest spender that I recall in my time was Pierre Trudeau. He was the one who let things get completely out of hand. Probably, one of the reasons why we are in some of the financial mess that this country is in now, was because of that great spender. Probably, too, that is one of the reasons why we have the great Scrooge as Minister of Finance in our Province right now.

I understand that one of the reasons why this bill is being changed had to do with a contract being negotiated last year by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association, and an arbitration award associated with that contract. It was explained to our Committee, the Government Services Legislation Review Committee, that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association allowed to have their contract put up for negotiation and, during that negotiation and arbitration, the Constabulary members, being a young force at present, opted to lose some benefits in their pension plan and to take immediate up front raises, and I believe it was something like an 8 per cent increase in salary. And, because it is now a young Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association, they were willing to accept it. Now, unfortunately, once they opened the contract and this pension plan for negotiations, the Government continued with the same agreement that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association had, and forced it on other members.

MR. WOODFORD: Where is your cap?

MR. R. AYLWARD: My cap, today, is hanging up on the road into the Goulds so that when people come to the meeting, tonight, they will know exactly where to go.

But I cannot be sidetracked, Mr. Speaker. This bill is much too important to the people who are affected by it. Now I understand that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, as I said, got an arbitration award of 8 per cent in the contract negotiations and they gave up some of their pension benefits. They voted on it and accepted it. That is the way it was explained to our Committee, as we met with different groups.

They gave pension benefits and the arbitrator gave him an award, yes. But they were - and they voted on it and accepted it or are willing to accept it and the reason being is that this is a young force and they need money immediately to raise their families and they are not thinking too far on pension benefits as all of us, when we were younger, happened to be doing. But, Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate part of that is when the arbitrator ruled on it it meant that the people who did not get this arbitration award, who did not get this 8 per cent increase in wages were also dragged into the same kind of a pension deal that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary got in their arbitration, and the ones who are going to be hurt most, I guess, even now that the firemen and the warders, I believe, but the firemen in particular are negotiating their contract and will probably go before an arbitrator also. They will make their arguments based on what they are going to lose in their pension, they will make their arguments and probably the arbitrator will see that it was not fair for the constabulary to get these wage benefits, and he will probably give them to the warders and the firemen also; firepersons I think they are called now. Fire fighters, that is what it is.

Mr. Speaker, the ones who are hurt most by what is happening in this - if I could find my notes here - will be the officers involved with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the officers at the penitentiary and the officers at the fire hall because when management raises were given out some years ago it - I am just trying to find out the proper names of them - when the management raises were given out for the public service generally a few years ago, the officers at the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, fire hall and the warders were given the same 2 per cent increase that all public service managers got.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, I do not remember ever employing a cucumber worker actually. I am growing strawberries, I am not growing cucumbers. The cucumbers failed, that is gone now. It is in the past, that is gone now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: That is in the past now. At the present time we have to try to deal with a Clyde lied campaign and other things so we will not bother with the cucumbers, we will just concentrate on what is happening today. I know the Minister likes to live in the past - I know he loves to live in the past, but I will just ignore that and we will carry on with the present campaign that is going around with bumper stickers on Members opposite's trucks, especially the Members that are upset with the leader that they have now. There are some bumper stickers appearing on them. And, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Services holds up an exhibit every now and then, Mr. Speaker, and I guess I will be allowed to hold up an exhibit too if the Minister of Social Services is allowed to. But, probably that could be unparliamentary. That might be unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, so I will not bother to get into the row with the Minister of Social Services. But if he wanted to I could haul out badges, bumper stickers and other posters, Mr. Speaker, but I am not allowed to wear a hat while I am standing. But I suppose I could lay this on my desk and read it into the record if we wanted to do that, but I have not got time for that. I have to get on with the importance of this debate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the policemen -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the officers down at the constabulary - I just want to go over a list of some of the people who made presentations to us.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, some of the people who appeared before our Committee, a Committee that works very well, I must say, and we listened attentively to all the concerns that were brought to us, and there were many.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Committees.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I was late for several of the meetings and I thank the Chairman of our Committee for filling in for me while I was late for a couple, and giving me a good briefing when I got there for me to catch up on what was happening. I appreciate that from the Chairman of our Committee, and saving some copies of the briefs so that I could take them home and go over them.

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association made a presentation to our Committee, Mr. Speaker, and part of that is included in our report. NAPE, representing the correctional officers gave us a presentation and made some find recommendations which we certainly will be going into in more detail in the Committee hearings of this debate. Her Majesty's Penitentiary Commission Officers: Now, Mr. Speaker, these are one of the groups that did not get the same wage increases to offset the losses in the pension as did members of some of the associations and unions. These are one of the groups -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. R. AYLWARD: I mentioned the police association earlier before you came in. What was told to us was they seemed to accept it, they voted on it, they lost pension benefits but they gained wages, and because they were a young force that was the choice they made. I agree with them, if they want to make that choice sobeit, but the choice should not have to be forced on everyone else who actually, during the last set of negotiations, made the choice opposite to that. They wanted to keep their pension benefits and keep the wages down a bit, because the average age of the fire fighters probably were a bit older than the constabulary association, but I am not sure about that. Maybe the same thing will exist for the correctional officers. I do not know that for a fact but it is quite possible. The police association made their choice, as was told to us by several of the groups that appeared before us, and that is good for them. But, Mr. Speaker, the commissioned officers at the Penitentiary wished to keep their present pension benefits but they also got only the 2 per cent wage increase that was given management people throughout the public service. What it did, Mr. Speaker, in the constabulary in particular, it allowed the constables and up to the staff sergeant, I believe, who are in the association to lower the gap between them and, I believe, it was the lieutenant. The Chairman of the Committee is reminding me there. I think the gap between staff sergeant and lieutenant has gone very close together, 1 per cent, I think.

MR. EFFORD: I cannot make any sense out of one word you are saying.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, I cannot make any sense out of anything you ever say, so I guess we are even on that one. I do not even understand what you say sometimes. If you have something to say speak up and say it. Do not sit there and mumble under your breath, speak up and say it. That is what you were elected to this House of Assembly for. If you have something to say get it out of you.

Mr. Speaker, the next group that gave us a presentation was the commissioned officers of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. We had some from the officers in the penitentiary who gave us many good briefs. Then we had the Firefighters Association. Also we had some information given to us by the Department of Finance through Mr. Bennett and Ms McCarthy who gave us a lot of help on this Committee. The Minister of Social Services says he does not understand it, well I do not blame him for not understanding it because he never had the opportunity of hearing all these briefs. The unfortunate part of it is he has admitted he does not understand it yet he is the one who is going to make the decisions in Cabinet that will affect all these workers. Whether he will make wise decisions, and hopefully he will, hopefully he can make a wise decision on it, but if he does make a wise decision it will be a pure fluke because he says he does not understand it, it is too complicated, but if he makes the decision, which I hope he does, I hope the members of these associations will benefit, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to go over the acts -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just interrupt the hon. Member for Kilbride for a second, so that I can let hon. members know that there was an agreement that we forego the Late Show, for this afternoon only.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just a point of order for the information of members. Our critic, for this particular piece of legislation, would not have started his comments until, maybe, about twenty or twenty-five after four. We had no idea how long the Minister was going to be. We were a little concerned that the Member for Kilbride might start to get into his response, and then have to adjourn at four-thirty. So, we have made an agreement to forego the Late Show for today only, to allow the Member for Kilbride to continue without being thrown off stride for maybe a week, as this bill might not come back for another week. We are starting amalgamation tomorrow. The Government House Leader and I have agreed to that.

Furthermore, the Member for Kilbride, is giving the official position of the Opposition on this particular piece of legislation. Our intention is to have more debate and more speakers on this legislation at the Committee stage, where we want to move some amendments and so on. So, that is basically the intent today, and then, I think, the intent is to move on to another small piece of legislation.

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that accurately represents the position. The Member for Kilbride is just now hitting his full stride, and I am looking forward to the next five or ten minutes while he puts together the position of the official Opposition on this particular piece of legislation.

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same point of order, or a different one?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I heard the hon. Opposition House Leader indicate that he and the Government House Leader had agreed to do this, to suspend the rules. I am sure he meant, subject to the unanimous consent of the House. I just wanted to ask for the confirmation of the Chair, that that is the case. I would also like to consent to the suspension of the rules to allow this. I would like to hear what the member has to say now in lieu of having the Late Show held this afternoon.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it was simply an oversight not to mention it to the NDP member. We do not always do that, of course, but occasionally we do, to let him know what is going on. But, I say to him, he was not on the Late Show, so it did not affect him in that sense. Secondly, I am only speaking for the official Opposition in terms of our intention with this piece of legislation. So, it simply means the Late Show is off, and we are here until five o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: It is a valid point of order. The rules were by agreement, and the Chair was explaining why there was no Late Show, when he was interrupted by the Opposition House Leader to explain the details to hon. members.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: I appreciate the consideration by all members of this House of Assembly, to continue with this, Mr. Speaker. I do not plan to talk for very long. We can probably deal with Second Reading within the next ten minutes or so.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to go over, for the benefit of hon. members who were not on the Committee, some of the changes that are in this act, compared to the old one, and some of the general recommendations that our Committee did make, just to outline them. Certainly we will deal with them in Committee Stage tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, this plan now, again, will cover two distinct groups. That, in itself, is a major change, because the plan is going to be split, which is a difference from what the present plan is. If the act goes through, as proposed, it will deal with people who want to stay in the old plan, who have nineteen years of service or more, and the other people, people who have less than nineteen years of service, or those who have more than nineteen and wish to go into the new plan.

Our Committee heard many presentations on this, and we have made a recommendation in our Committee report, that this nineteen years be reduced to ten years. It was not an easy decision to do it, because we realize that there will not be many people take that option. We realize that the unfunded liability or the current responsibilities have to be paid for. We were not trying to ignore that. So, if this is reduced, even at the nineteen year option, it is going to be very expensive for anyone to stay in the old plan.

I believe estimates of up to $150 a pay cheque I think was mentioned during our hearings, so that would not be very easy to do and it was with great reluctance that we went along with the committee hearing after much debate, not to try to do something with the contributions; we made a general recommendation but we did not make anything specific.

It is very easy to offer some one an option, but if you are offered an option that is impossible to afford, the option is not much good to any one and that was the line of thinking that our committee had when we were doing our report. So we did recommend it, we put it down at ten years but it is going to be extremely difficult for people to avail of this option because of the expense, and this plan now will have separate recommendations for the new plan as it is going to be in the future.

One of the good things of this plan I guess, will be a vesting period reduced from ten years to five years, certainly that is the same as the Public Service Pension Plan was reduced. We had some presentations in this one and in our other committee meetings to reduce that to two, but we understand nationally, that is coming in the future and we said Newfoundland cannot afford to be leading the way in that so we will wait.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, that will be phased in eventually, so our committee thought that was not an unreasonable period and once the trend starts across the country, certainly we will have to keep up with it no matter who is governing.

The old plan gave a 55 per cent pension entitlement after twenty-five years I believe it was; the new plan is going to be a 60 per cent pension entitlement, and a modified will be 55 per cent as the old plan was. Estate provisions I believe has a new provision in the new act in the new plan; in the old act there is no such provisions nor does the modified old act have such provisions. I think it could be considered to be put into the revised old act, but again, it would probably be quite an expense at the time.

Interest paid on contributions: I believe that is bringing it more in line with the Public Service Pension Plan on what interest will be paid so that is something that is new in this plan. In the old plan it was 5 per cent per annum, in the new plan, one year's chartered bank, the same as the Public Service Pension Plan; in the modified old plan, it remains at 5 per cent. I do not think it will take much to change that modified old plan to catch up with the proper interest rates.

Pensionable salary that is used as a base for determining the amount of pension: in the old plan, the final rate of salary at the age of retirement was what the pension was based on; in the new plan, the average of the best three years of salary which could, for some be a benefit. It probably would not affect a whole number of people, but it could, if you happen to be working your last three years at a lower salary position for some reason, you could go out with a low pension if you stayed with the old plan, but under this new plan, at least it will take your three best years, but again, this is no doubt a reduction in benefits; I think everyone recognizes this is a reduction in benefits with the new plan.

The modified old plan will be the salary at the date of retirement again which is the same as the old plan. Contribution rates, was certainly a big controversial point with the people who came to our committee hearings, in particular in the year of a freeze, when the salary/wages are frozen and the contributions are going to increase, it certainly will be very hard for the people who have to pay these increases to make up the difference and it makes it much harder for them to avail of the option of staying with the modified old plan.

Mr. Speaker, redundancy pensions, are a part of this as there are no provisions for redundancy pensions in the new plan. Vested employees could avail of the pension, should a position be declared redundant, in the old plan I believe it was, but I am not sure what way the redundancy pensions work now, because when we are dealing with all of them I get confused and probably when the Minister closes debate, he might try to clarify what -

AN HON. MEMBER: There was none in the old plan.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The old plan did not have it. There is no provision for redundancy pensions in the new plan or the modified old plan. So that is gone. I do not remember if the old unmodified plan had it or not, but my colleague for St. John's East Extern says there was none.

Purchase service, cost to employee. I believe the purchase service provision in this makes it more or less in line with the Public Service Pension plan. Advanced retirement: Normal retirement could be advanced by one year through the purchase of one year non-work service. The old plan, you could buy one year non-work service at twice the normal contributions. In the new and the new modified there are no provisions for such an option.

Age of retirement: This is the one that people had a lot of problems with. And particularly the firefighters are having trouble with the new changes in retirement ages. They find it - the way it will be, the age and service requirements must be met in order for an employee to receive a pension. The old plan and the modified old plan, it is normal retirement. Non-commissioned officers, mandatory retirement attaining the early or fifty-five years of age or twenty-five years of service. And for commissioned officers it was sixty. The optional retirement. Senior officers, fifty-five and thirty years; junior officers twenty-five years. In the new plan the normal retirement age will be sixty for all employees.

I am not sure but I imagine it would be fairly difficult for firefighters in particular to try to - I suppose a man at sixty, I am almost fifty myself, now, and I feel I could probably still do it, but I am not fifty-five yet. Start lugging ladders around and putting them up next to the side of this building here and trying to climb up them with a charged hose. I think it would be very tough. The older you get obviously the tougher it would be. Now we are told -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, no, no vested interest.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I know, I did too, I thought he did. But he straightened me out, he does not.

But I think it would be very difficult at fifty-five, fifty-six, fifty-seven, fifty-eight years old to be climbing up ladders with a charged hose in your hand. I mean, I do not know for sure. But we are told that that provision is in most of the - that is the normal retirement age for most firefighters in North America. I do not know that for a fact. I have been told that but I have not checked it out with any sources. So I will have to accept it because I can not refute it.

But it seems to me in a small fire department like we have here in St. John's - if there was a larger department and 10 per cent of your staff were over fifty-five, you could have another job for them. You would not have to get them doing the real tough physical work. You could find something else for them to do. But in a small fire department, especially the way our fire department has been cut back over the last year or so and over the last couple of days, there are not many people answering the calls. And you could have a crew where the average age of that crew going out there might be fifty-five, fifty-seven years old in four or five years time when we start with this new pension. And I would say they would have difficulty.

The least that will have to be done is a new training programme. There has to be some funds put into a new training programme, certainly, to try to achieve this option. But I have my doubts about it. I certainly do not think it can be achieved too easily. But hopefully it will. I cannot support it. I literally cannot support this because I think it is a reduction. It endangers the lives of the firefighters and it is a reduction in the fire service for the metropolitan area. Including the Goulds, St. John's, Mount Pearl and Wedgewood Park.

Now, some of the retirement benefits in this: Percentage of pension that is earned each year from one to twenty years, 2 per cent; from twenty-one to twenty-five, 4 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: The old plan - it is good enough, is it? I have just about run out of the major differences I see in this plan. But I just wanted to make it clear to the Minister that of all the groups that came to us to make a presentation who are involved in this plan, each and every one of them objected to having their plan changed in midstream.

They could accept some changes in it eventually if the people who took the jobs with certain conditions attached could finish out their career with those conditions and any new person coming into the system would start on the new plan. That would be the ultimate in fairness. The minimum in fairness, I would suggest to the Minister, will be that we reduce the nineteen year option where they are to get in either plan if you reduce that to ten years. That is the minimum fairness that can be. I would prefer to see it back to zero. Whoever is working there today grandfather-(inaudible) until they are finished, but if that is not possible, and I do not know, it is a complicated thing, I do not know the cost of it. It could be just too much for the Province to bear, I really do not know those costs. And nobody who came before us told us the cost so I cannot judge it. But if the minimum we should do is give the option back to about a ten year service, at least a ten year, certainly less than nineteen. Everyone came to us and said that nineteen was too high and nineteen was only an arbitrary figure that was placed in there because you started increasing at 4 or 5 per cent after the nineteen years. It was judged that nineteen years would be their career no doubt, but if someone stays in the place for fifteen years it is certainly a career, if someone stays in the place for even ten years and are happy with it I think they could make a career out of it, and if they did not they could move out and take their vested money. Their money will be vested after five years anyway, so if they leave after the ten years they will take their money with them.

So I would implore the Minister at least, there should be many changes and all the people are against this bill, and unless there are major changes in it I will not be able to support it when it comes time for the vote, but we will discuss that in committee. But at least the Minister could leave the option or give an improved option of changing the nineteen year optional period back to ten. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. If he speaks now he closes the debate.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not have much to say in conclusion, I just want to indicate that the Member raised a question about redundancy pensions and we are proposing to eliminate redundancy pensions for all as a general measure. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will just move second reading and continue the debate when we get in committee.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting Pensions For The Members Of The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary And The St. John's Fire Department And The Staff Of Her Majesty's Penitentiary," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 7).

MR. BAKER: Order 19, Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 24.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Co-operatives Societies Act". (Bill No. 24).

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am extremely pleased to introduce this Bill. Of all the bills that I have introduced in the House so far this is perhaps the one that I am most happy about introducing. What we are doing here is transferring responsibility, regulation of Credit Unions, from the Department of Development to the Department of Finance. And we are doing that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Raiding Departments.

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, we're sort of raiding them but for a reason. We are leaving with the Department of Development the responsibility for co-operatives and to Enterprise Newfoundland the responsibility for encouraging the development of Credit Unions. But what the Department of Finance will be doing is the regulation of Credit Unions. Because what we want to do is to bring in a guarantee situation whereby the Government can provide - or our Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation which we will be establishing - will be able to guarantee the deposits of Credit Unions in a similar fashion to the way that CDIC guarantees the deposits of banks.

If we can do that we will give a great boost to the Credit Union movement in the Province. And we need the Credit Union movement in the Province very much for a number of reasons. First of all in many areas of the Province there are no branch banks. For instance, from Nain right down the whole coast of Labrador apart from Goose Bay there is no bank. And right on down the Quebec north shore where there is a road there is no bank. There are just the Credit Unions and the Caisse Populaire. And in other parts of Newfoundland also there are no banks.

But it is not only because there are no banks. It is also because Credit Unions, which have banking-like services, are owned by the people of the Province. They are owned by the people whom they serve. It is like our own banking system, in a way. We have no other banking system that is indigenous to this Province. We used to have a bank, one time, the Newfoundland Savings Bank, and we used to save up our money when we were youngsters, during the Second World War. I do not know if anybody else was around during the Second World War. We used to have those war saving certificates, and so on. We would take our ten cents and buy a little stamp to stick on, and when we got $2.50, we would send it in to the Savings Bank and we had a little account there. We would not have very much. I had about $7.00 or $7.50, or something like that when I left school. But, it was a very good thing and we were all proud of the Newfoundland Savings Bank. And, then, gosh, they sold out to the Bank of Montreal, and we had no bank.

AN HON. MEMBER: You had no bank.

DR. KITCHEN: We had no local one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) down on Duckworth Street.

DR. KITCHEN: Right. And now, the Credit Union is the next best thing we have to a Newfoundland bank. It is probably better in many ways, because it is owned - and for many, many reasons which I do not want to get into now and on which I could speak for two or three hours, which undoubtedly we will when we clue it up, and undoubtedly when we get into Committee we will be up and down talking about the various merits of credit unions.

But, coming back to the bill, I want to point out a couple of things here. One is that the main purpose of this bill is to transfer the regulation of credit unions from Development to Finance. This means, of course, that we will have to have two registrars, one in the Department of Development for co-ops and one in the Department of Finance for credit unions. There will be no new personnel involved here. A person will be designated to do that. We are going to change the name of the Stabilization Fund Board to the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation, and we are also going to permit corporations to be members of credit unions. That will mean that we will be permitting commercial loans after we get the appropriate regulations in place to govern these loans. We have to be very careful about commercial loans by credit unions because of the dangers that are inherent in that. They are large loans and they are very volatile so we have to be quite careful with our regulations in that. The regulations, I guarantee you, will be put in place to prevent anything serious with respect to that.

I do not think there is much else for me to say, at this point. I will make a longer presentation in Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is 4:54, so one does not have much time to get into any major commentary on this particular piece of legislation. I believe, maybe, the critic might want to have something to say on another day when we get back to it. I know that my friend for St. John's East has some comments to make on it, so it will not finish today. So, I will just make some -

AN HON. MEMBER: St. John's East Extern.

MR. SIMMS: The Member for St. John's East Extern probably wants to speak to it, and the Member for Kilbride might wish to make a few comments.

I will call it 5:00 in a moment; I just want to make a couple of preliminary comments, if I may, in response to the Minister's remarks.

First of all, we have reason to support this legislation, I believe, from my understanding, if it is that the Credit Union people, themselves, who are very supportive of it. They particularly like the idea of moving away from the Department of Development and into the Department of Finance, and that is very understandable. In fact, the words that I have heard used from some people, and I will not say to whom, is that, the only concern they have,at all, the only possible concern they could have, at all, with this particular piece of legislation, is that they are now moving from a Department where the Minister is never there and does not know what is going on, to a Department where the Minister is always there, but does not know what is going on, and that seems to be their major concern -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister is always there, but he does not know where he is.

MR. SIMMS: I am not saying that is a major concern of the credit unions, and I am not saying it is a major concern of the Opposition, but I suspect it is the major concern of the vast majority of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; that would be one of their major concerns.

Now, Mr. Speaker, again I say that the Opposition supports the legislation obviously, the credit unions support it. We have no reason to stymie this legislation at all, to slow it down, but members do have interest, for example, in the Co-op movement, and I know some members on this side would want to ask a few questions, perhaps, of the Minister of Development, even though it is not strictly on this amendment to that bill, about Co-ops and Co-op movements and what is happening in that respect. I might say that personally, I should have declared - according to the rules of the Legislature, I suppose, if one has a personal interest, one is supposed to declare that interest, so, I will use this opportunity before calling it 5:00 p.m., to declare my own personal interest in the Credit Union, being a depositor, albeit, of a very minor proportion. I happen to have a Credit Union opened in my constituency of Grand Falls, and a marvellous facility it is, tremendous people operating that branch in Grand Falls, in fact, I am not sure if it was the first `drive-thru' or the second `drive-thru.' When did the one in Mount Pearl open?

MR. FLIGHT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, on a point of order.

MR. FLIGHT: I want to draws to the attention of the hon. House, Mr. Speaker, that the Credit Union that the hon. House Leader refers to is in the new town of Grand Falls - Windsor, and not Grand Falls, as he indicated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, if they have all settled down, let me say that the Minister of Forestry has just confirmed my worst suspicion. He never listens to what is being said. He never knows what is going on. I did not say that the Credit Union branch was located in the Town of Grand Falls, I said it was located in my constituency of Grand Falls, which it is. Would the Minister care to withdraw his stupid point of privilege?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: It was not a point of privilege.

MR. SIMMS: Well, whatever it was, it was not a point of anything.

The new Credit Union in the District of Grand Falls is in the electoral District of Grand Falls. There is no question about that. What is the argument? Grand Falls - Windsor - what is the argument?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, not only am I not ashamed of it, but I suspect, if it were not for me, it would never have happened.

Mr. Speaker, I call it 5:00.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is probably not needed, but I remind hon. members that we will be calling the amalgamation resolution, tomorrow morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Len the Amalgamator!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. Members have agreed to call it 5:00 p.m. Since we have dispensed with the Late Show, is the Chair to assume that the motion to adjourn is still in order?

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.