The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. AYLWARD: I am very pleased to announce a major step in the Provincial Government's efforts to improve air quality concerns in Labrador West.

In August, I accompanied departmental staff on a visit to the Iron Ore Company of Canada's mining and processing facilities in Labrador City. Subsequent to that I wrote company officials to note my concern with air quality problems in and around the town and requested appropriate action be taken.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we met with Mr. Reg Gagnon, Vice President of Operations for Iron Ore Company of Canada, who advised me that approval has been received from their Board of Directors to proceed with a $24 million investment to address air emissions from their concentrating plant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. AYLWARD: This will involve the removal of two dry grinding mills which have significant air emissions and their replacement by one wet mill, having the equivalent capacity, but with no air emissions. This upgrade will be completed by the end of 1997.

The replacement of the two grinding mills will mean a reduction of 50 per cent in the amount of dust released from the total processing operation. As a result, a major improvement is anticipated in the air quality conditions in Labrador West.

In addition, my colleague, the hon. Tom Murphy, Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, is pleased to note that with the conversion to wet grinding, dust levels in the concentrator will decline substantially, thus benefitting the workers and having a tremendous impact on Occupational Health and Safety.

During the two years before this conversion is completed, the company has agreed to maximize their efforts in controlling dust emissions from the dry mills to the environment and within the concentrator. Further, they will also expand their air monitoring program in the town, to better evaluate compliance with regulations and potential health impacts on the citizens.

This is the culmination of a successful year for the Department of Environment, Mr. Speaker, in addressing industrial pollution. Other major noteworthy events this year include: completion of a new bark boiler at Corner Brook Pulp and Paper; start of construction of secondary treatment at Corner Brook Pulp and Paper; completion of secondary treatment at Abitibi-Price in Grand Falls. Improvements in secondary treatment at Abitibi-Price in Stephenville; continued improvements at the North Atlantic Refining Limited refinery, which meet and go beyond the conditions of our Environmental Compliance Initiative.

We look forward to further developments in 1996, Mr. Speaker, and we congratulate the Iron Ore Company of Canada and also the union representatives with IOC, who have been very active on this issue for a number of years and who have impressed upon the company the need for this change. It is a significant investment by the company. And the Town of Lab City have been very active and deserve to be commended, Sir, for the good work they have done. As well, the officials of our department, Mr. Speaker, who have been diligently trying to do what they can, deserve a commendation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Santa Claus - don't forget Santa Claus!

MR. AYLWARD: Best wishes, Mr. Speaker, and Season's Greetings.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: I was about to thank Santa Claus for his announcement, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to see that the Iron Ore company of Canada have made the announcement that they are going ahead with the replacement of two dry mills, 9 and 10, with one mill, a state-of-the-art mill that will restrict the dust emissions within the plants, and of course, also within the communities of Labrador City and Wabush. It will not only restrict the dust emissions and make it a safer workplace, but it also tells the people of Western Labrador that making this sizeable monetary commitment, this $24 million - I am led to understand that there may be in total capital expenditure over the next two years in excess of $30 million in the mining company. Of course, this sends a signal to the community that they have faith in the long-term viability of that particular mining property and the community. So, that eases a lot of people's minds.

I am rather disappointed that the minister has not also announced that he is going to be doing further monitoring and making further suggestions with regard to the suggestions of the union that they made in previous meetings with the government to have vegetation planted on the tailings area, especially in the Wabush mines tailings area, because a lot of the dust that is coming in over the communities of Labrador City and Wabush is from the tailings area. I think if planting of vegetation were encouraged by this government, the mining company would be able to do it, and that would make cleaner the air quality in Labrador City and Wabush.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: I would hope that the minister -

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave to finish up.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. A. SNOW: I would hope that the minister and his colleagues would encourage the mining company in Wabush to plant vegetation on this area to make the place a safer and better place to live and work. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I rise to advise members of this House that the Federal Government yesterday announced plans to extend federal funding for the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, RRAP, until March of 1997.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: The housing repair program had previously been scheduled to end on December 31 1995. The RRAP provides assistance to low-income homeowners to bring their homes up to health and safety standards. It also covers emergency repairs for low-income home owners living in rural areas and provides assistance to persons with disabilities to make their homes accessible. Another program component is targeted to landlords of rental properties allowing them to upgrade substandard rental and rooming house accommodations.

In his announcement yesterday, the hon. David Dingwall, Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, stated that the federal government has committed $50 million to extend this program as part of a federal initiative to create jobs and promote economic growth. Based on preliminary indications, it would appear that the amount of federal funding available to this Province would be in the order of $2.1 million. The precise amount has not been yet confirmed.

Over the next few weeks this government will consider the federal minister's invitation to once again cost share in this RRAP program and the implications of continuing to operate this program in light of government's upcoming fiscal Budget.

Thank you.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am going to respond for the simple reason that I am aware of some of the issues that have taken place on this, and not because the minister gave a copy to anyone. I say to the minister that no one on this side got a copy.

What we are saying here is that the whole country of Canada is going to receive approximately $50 million that is going to deal with several issues. There is going to be so much given out for people who have apartments, who are going to get money to fix up apartments, and so much given to home owners, and probably so much for the rural and urbanized part of the Province - they are not sure of the details on that, but what we do know, Mr. Speaker, is what is going to be extended here is very, very little.

Now, I do not know how we are going to be allocated. They have not told the minister, as I understand it, as to what percentage this Province will receive.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: It will not be enough I say to the minister, and it will not go far enough. It is only to appease the few people who have been looking for it. When you look at what is going to be spread across this country, $50 million, the few measly million that are going to come to this Province will not do anything to address the drastic problem that exists in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions about the Terra Nova offshore oil development which I will put to the Premier to start with. The developers, Petro Canada and their partners, have indicated that there will be opportunities for topsides fabrication to be done in Newfoundland, but subject to competition. I would like to ask the Premier what he and his government are doing to see to it that this time the government's pencil is sharp and we don't have a repeat of the sad loss of work from the Marystown Shipyard in favour of the Maritimes. What has the government done to learn from the mistakes made with respect to Hibernia and to ensure that for Terra Nova, for our second offshore oil development, we derive maximum industrial benefits in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Sharpened pencils are not enough. What we need is sharpened industries and that's what we have been trying to do with Marystown and that's the approach that we are taking -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - and if you consult with the Member for Burin - Placentia West, I am sure that he would endorse what the government has done in this regard to make Marystown and the entire operation more effective and more efficient, so that they can wield the sharpened pencil. It is no good government wielding a sharpened pencil if we can't perform to that standard and government ends up having to subsidize it or take massive losses, so we have taken the right course of action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology who said after Marystown Shipyard lost a big fabrication contract that the government would sharpen its pencil so that Marystown could be ready for the next contract. Well, Marystown wasn't ready for the next contract. After it was awarded to Marystown, it was taken away and towed to the Maritimes. Now, I ask the Premier, what, in concrete terms, is he doing, is the Cabinet doing, to ensure that the Marystown Shipyard is better prepared to get any work that's put out to international competition for topsides fabrication for the Terra Nova project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: That is precisely the same question cast in slightly different words, and I have to tell the member that the answer is precisely the same as the one I have just given.

Now I could take the time of the House and repeat it all but I won't do that. I will add only this further piece of information, that as of November, there were 720 people working at the shipyard in connection with -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

PREMIER WELLS: That overall these contracts, for those two supply vessels, and other contracts valued at over $120 million were awarded to the shipyard and have accounted for 80 to 85 per cent of its total output, since 1993.

Mr. Speaker, we can do that, and we will continue to try and promote Marystown Shipyard, but the critical thing is to make it the most efficient and most effective we possibly can. That is what, in the end, will win the day, not government pressure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How the government is going to make the Marystown Shipyard more competitive and more successful is the big question which the Premier failed to answer.

Let me ask the minister responsible for Education and Training about the government's strategy for preparing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for jobs that will be generated through the Terra Nova development. In the case of Hibernia, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians did not get near the jobs they could have got or should have got had there been a better approach to preparation and provision of training. Has the government learned any lessons from the Hibernia experience, and how is the government going to improve the rate of employment in the Province of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? How is the government going to ensure that for the Terra Nova project, for which we know there will be less construction in the Province over all -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS VERGE: - there will be a higher percentage of available jobs going to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians than was the case for the Hibernia project?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. DECKER: I wonder, could she repeat the last fifteen questions, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what planet the hon. member was on. I take great pride today in what we did with Hibernia. We had a few problems with the underwater welding - very few - because what the industry wanted was experience and we could not train experience, but I will proudly say that the people we trained for Hibernia, probably as much as -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ninety-four per cent.

MR. DECKER: Ninety-four per cent, my colleague tells me, and let me tell the hon. member something else. There has been some suggestion about the quality of welding which was done in Korea, which was done in other parts of the world. The welding that was done by Newfoundlanders had a default rate of somewhere around 1 per cent, which is unheard of in the industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: So the hon. member should get her feet on the ground and take great pride in what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have done with Hibernia, and be confident that we are going to do even better - even better - when Terra Nova comes on stream.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How the government is going to improve is the question the minister failed to answer, but I am glad to hear him say that he sees room for improvement because the rest of us can see room for improvement.

Let me conclude by asking the Premier: The government's best estimates of the net affect on the provincial treasury of the Terra Nova development on top of the Hibernia development. What are the current projections of finance officials of the net gain in revenue for the Province from the Terra Nova project, net allowing for the loss in equalization payments from the federal government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I feel like this is a game of musical ministers, musical chairs or something.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but in negotiating and working out a fiscal arrangement with the Terra Nova consortium the officials did a detailed assessment of every which way, and this was all part of the information used during the course of these negotiations and discussions, and were the basis on which the Province approved or disapproved of recommendations coming from officials as to the course that ought to be followed during the conduct of those negotiations.

I can only say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of the House, that in general terms the Province will get a greater level of benefit by way of direct return to government in terms of royalties and tax benefits than would be the case with Hibernia. Everybody has to acknowledge that Hibernia was a special one-off arrangement that was made to get the offshore oil industry going in this Province. It was necessary to establish the foundation. I've often said, wherever I've spoken in the country, that the big contribution Hibernia will make is not even the 5,000 jobs that are working there now or the tax contribution, or the revenue contribution; the biggest contribution will be the role it will have played as the foundation of a broader-based oil industry that will benefit this Province for decades to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Premier as well On December 13 I questioned the Premier as to the status of the amendment to Term 17, where it was in the federal system. At that time the Premier indicated that he was continuing discussions with the Prime Minister, "...and when I am in a position to indicate something further I will forthwith it by the House." Further on he said that they were trying "...to deal with it very effectively at the earliest possible opportunity."

I'm wondering now if the Premier can indicate to the House if he has a deal from the Prime Minister as to when this will be dealt with in the House of Commons. Can he confirm for the House that the federal government has some concerns about the language, the wording of the resolution?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I cannot confirm exactly what the arrangement is, as at this point in time. I expect I will be able to do so in a matter of days.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, it is simply not done - if the House stays open those days it won't be when the House closes. If the House does not stay open those days then it will be when the House closes but there is no relationship. It is not in any matter related. I thought the hon. member would appreciate the logic, Mr. Speaker, but it is not in any manner dependent upon or related to the closure of the House, I can assure the House of that. The second question that the hon. -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, there is no indication of any concern about the language, at least none has been indicated to me.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Premier.

Does the Premier not have an undertaking now from the Prime Minister that this matter will be dealt with when parliament resumes in the new year, the middle of February or whenever it is? Does he have an undertaking that indeed it will be looked after then or is the provincial government going to proceed with the reforms that it can proceed with, without waiting for the amendment federally?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The two questions; the first one, as soon as the understanding is made clear to me I will make it clear to the people of this Province through the House if the House is open when it occurs, in a public statement if the House is not open. I cannot commit to any more then that.

The second question was: Are we prepared to start implementing some reforms that can be implemented without that? The answer is they are all underway at the moment. Everything that can be done, without legislative changes that are dependent upon a change in the jurisdiction of the House, everything that can be done is in the process of being done or in the process of being implemented one way or the other. The key issues of course are school boards, school districts, location of schools, viability standards and rules. It is not much good our bringing in viability rules if the churches are going to say: well it does not matter what you say about viability we are going to have a fifty student school here anyway. We could say well busing is not under the constitution. We won't give you busing but that is a kind of financial blackmail and I don't think that that is a right approach for government. So that we really have to wait until we get the legislative changes.

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

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

Let me ask the Premier this then, is it a matter of timetable? Is it a matter of arranging a schedule with the Prime Minister as to when it will be dealt with by the House of Commons? Is that what the Premier is trying to work out or is it a more technical matter with the amendment and so on that is causing some problems, and while he is on his feet, it was reported, whether correctly or incorrectly, that the Minister of Justice was in Ottawa on this matter and perhaps the Premier could confirm for us then to clear the air whether it is correct or incorrect, that's why he was there.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Ministers go to Ottawa from time to time to meet on a variety of things. Government is not in the habit of discussing it in detail unless there is some public merit in doing so. I don't see any merit in doing so in this case and the Minister of Justice was in Ottawa on official government business and I will let it -

AN HON. MEMBER: OHMS

PREMIER WELLS: OHMS. I will let it remain at that. Now there was another question, you keep asking those questions -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) but it is a matter of getting a schedule, a timetable from the Prime Minister or is it more technical?

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I am hesitant to be sort of foreclosing what the Prime Minister is going to say on it, but I can say to you that timetable was a matter of concern to the Prime Minister.

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

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

I would like to ask a question if I may to the Minister of Education and Training on a matter that concerns me deeply and that's a statement made by the President of the University yesterday - yes, I think it was yesterday - about one of the options the University is considering to deal with its shortfall in savings, they can find $2 million but not the $3.4 that government has directed. That one of the options the University is looking at is dipping into the scholarship fund.

I want to ask the minister if he supports even a consideration of that option, not alone taking the option but considering it, because it is going to have dire consequences for the scholarship fund which has had difficulty in getting money anyway, but if there is even an insinuation that the University is going to dip into that fund to deal with a shortfall in revenue, then the scholarship fund is going to dry up because people are not going to donate to it because they are going to feel that they have been sort of done in.

So I want to ask the minister: Does he support the University even talking publicly about considering the option, and will he indeed support the University looking in to taking funds from the scholarship fund to get it through this fiscal year financially?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the statement. I have no reason to believe that it is wrong or that it is not wrong. At this stage it is only hearsay so I would put that in the category of hypothetical questions and I will answer it when I am aware of some real basis for it. At the moment it is purely hypothetical, it is hearsay and I am not at liberty to comment. I don't believe in commenting on hearsay.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that someone in the minister's department must have brought this to the minister's attention. I mean, he can be coy about this but the reason I raise the question is that I am seriously concerned about even the President of the University making a public comment such as that, that he would consider taking money from the scholarship fund because that University has struggled to build up the scholarship fund that it has, and if word gets out that it is being considered, that money be taken from it to get the University through this fiscal year, then certainly, the donors are going to be reluctant to donate any further I say to the minister. So if the minister hasn't been advised, will he make an undertaking to call the President of the University and see if indeed the President is serious about that or even why he would make a public comment, because even making a public comment in my view is going to be detrimental to the future of the scholarship fund at the University.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the reason I hesitate commenting on hearsay from this particular member, is because, during the last convocation, the President of the University, if I were to listen to the hon. member, the President said he was going to increase tuition by 50 per cent or he is going to lay off 400 faculty members. When I got the speech, what the President had really said was: Here are things that could be done. We could raise tuition by 50 per cent, we could lay off 400 teachers; none of these things are even being considered he said so I cannot comment on any hearsay that the hon. member brings here until I see exactly what the President of the University said. When I see that, then I will deal with it, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Could the minister give the House an update with regard to the issue of transhipment of Hibernia oil, as to whether or not the oil is going to be trans-shipped through Come by Chance or Point Tupper or some place in Nova Scotia. Is there anything new on this, anything the minister can advise the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Very little, Mr. Speaker. That particular issue has not yet been settled. We hope that it does get settled over the next few months. We expect it to get settled over the next few months.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and they relate to an issue I have raised in this House over the past number of weeks with regard to the lay-off of the mechanic at the Trepassey depot.

Since this winter season schedule started for Works, Services and Transportation, the mechanical duties at Trepassey have been carried out by two mechanics from Renews, all in an effort, as the minister would say, to save money. During the first two weeks of December, these two mechanics have worked, along with their regular hours, 131 hours of overtime, which at time-and-a-half, equals 196.5 regular hours, which would be almost five regular forty-hour weeks for the Trepassey mechanic. I ask the minister: Is this, the new math in his department, really saving dollars for this Province, or is it a charade?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not say at any time that we laid off mechanics to save money, or cuts. There have been no cutbacks for the purpose of saving money. What I said was very clear, that we re-organized the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. Number one, we do not need as many depots in this Province as we did years ago. Because of the new equipment we do not need as many mechanics around the Province. With the five-year warranty on the trucks we take them to the supplier of the new equipment. Therefore, the total re-organization of the department caused the lay-offs of some mechanics. The decisions have been made and the decisions are standing within the department.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: I say, Mr. Speaker, that the total disorganization of the department is costing the taxpayers of this Province a lot of money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Several times this year we have heard the minister talk about the new machinery that his department has on the highways in this Province. He just did so a few minutes ago.

Just last week, I came across a sand truck broken down on the side of the road in my district. When I asked the driver about the problem he said, one problem is that the truck is fourteen years old. The two mechanics I talked about in my first question have worked 131 overtime hours in two weeks. I cannot imagine that these mechanics are working on new equipment; they have to be working on the antiques. I would like to ask the minister: What percentage of the vehicles on the road are under warranty with the companies that they were bought from, and what indeed are no longer serviced by warranty but are serviced by mechanics in his department?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, let me give an example of what is taking place, regardless of all the complaints that are coming from the hon. House of Assembly about the kind of a mess we have in this Province. I will read a paragraph of a letter I received in the mail today: `During the last fifty-eight years, I have driven over 2 million miles in every kind of weather and road conditions to be experienced in Newfoundland, and without any fear of contradiction, on a consistency basis, I have never seen it better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: There are two things I can say about that, Mr. Speaker. One, I would like to know what airline the writer of that letter works with. I would also like to know if the minister does a better job of answering his letters than he does answering the questions that I have asked.

It has been brought to my attention that indeed a fair amount of mechanical repairs of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation vehicles are now being carried out in private garages throughout the Province while mechanics are being laid off and sent home. I ask the minister: Is this part of a plan of this government to privatize the Department of Works, Services and Transportation?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not getting the information he is quoting there from some of his colleagues sitting close to him, because I can tell you, the information is not correct.

We will privatize any part of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, in line with government's policy, that we can. What the hon. member just stated is incorrect. We are not taking the trucks to private garages as a part of privatization. If we are going to privatize it, we will privatize it in an orderly fashion. We are taking trucks to garages when it is necessary to take them to a private garage; whether they be under warranty or for whatever reason, we will do that. We will do it where it is necessary for efficiency and for service.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

It is my understanding that a solution used to prevent oxidization of seal pelts, known as `anti-yellow', is produced and only made available by a company in Norway. I ask the minister if he or his department have any thoughts or intentions of producing a similar product here in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I could not hear the second or third word that you said. Would you repeat that, please, the early part of the question?

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, my question was to the minister and it read: It is my understanding that a solution used to prevent oxidization of seal pelts, known as `anti-yellow', is produced and only made available by a company in Norway. I ask the minister if he or his department have any thoughts or intentions of producing a similar product here in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Member for Humber Valley would like for me to go into a tirade as to what antioxidants means.

Anyhow, yes, indeed, there is such a product that prevents the oxidation of long-chain fatty acids in seal pelts. The product is, indeed, made in Norway, and at this point in time, with the development of our sealing industry where it is right at this present time, no, there has not been any consideration to start making the product here in Newfoundland, but I am not closing the door there.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Report of the Royal Commission brought forward on seals back in 1986, the Malouf Report, indicated at that time their concern of having this antioxidant made available only from a foreign country. I ask the minister if he shares the commission's concern, and if so, what has his department done over the past ten years in order to correct this situation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture has done a tremendous amount over the last ten years to set the groundwork and the framework in place to once again enter into a seal fishery. As hon. members on both sides of this House know, the department has done a great deal in developing markets and so on. If that particular antioxidant that you are referring to, Sir, is the most efficient - and I will say this very cautiously - if it is the most efficient antioxidant to use in the future tanning process and preparation of the hides, then indeed, this Province will look at the potential of establishing a production facility here, but I would caution you and say that in the last ten years many new antioxidants have come on the market, and I would like to look at all of them and determine which one is most efficient.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister: Why should Norway or any other country hold our fishermen here in this Province hostage in purchasing their seal products, because this one particular item is available only from this foreign country?

I ask the minister if he would immediately move to see if we can produce something here in this Province, something that would be acceptable to the meat of the seal as well as the pelt, and ask if he would move on it immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me assure this hon. House, and let me assure this Province, that this government will not let any country hold it hostage to the development of the great seal industry that we have here to develop in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. As we know, Marine Atlantic and the Federal Government have announced plans to begin a process to look at the possibilities of privatizing the Newfoundland Dockyard in terms of employee takeover.

I have two questions for the minister. In view of the fact that the Provincial Government has a large stake in terms of the investment in the synchrolift, is the Provincial Government or anybody from your department involved in that process and, if so, could you explain how? The second question: Should an employee takeover become a real possibility, is the Provincial Government willing to look seriously at, or grant EDGE status to the new operation?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my hon. friend back and thank him for his questions. The first question, which is a good question, is, is there any -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Is that answer satisfactory?

The first part of his question was whether or not there is anybody involved. I can tell him that I have been personally involved. In fact, I met with the manager of the Dockyard yesterday morning, and last week, in Ottawa, I had the opportunity to spend a little over an hour with Winston Baker, who is leading the charge for the Federal Government with respect to the employee takeover.

MR. ROBERTS: He goes to Ottawa all the time.

MR. FUREY: That was one of the reasons I was in Ottawa; the other was to deal with the Marystown Shipyard, on which I hope we will have more positive news in the next little while.

The other part of the question I think the gentleman asked was whether or not it would meet the requirements for the EDGE status. I can only say that they would have to make application, but I would say at first blush that I would not think the Dockyard would make the EDGE status, simply because, if he recalls, under clause 4 of that legislation there is what is called a competition clause and how would you deal with giving one tax preference in St. John's when in Marystown they would not have that preference, or at Bull Arm, or ASIL in Port aux Basques, or any of these other large metal fabrication yards. I would not discount it but I would say the odds are very much against having EDGE status because of that competition clause.

At the officials level, the deputy minister has been having some meetings with senior management at the Dockyard. I personally have been involved with Mr. Baker and I have met with Mr. Apostolidis on a number of occasions.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period is over.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of a large number of people in St. John's Centre and surrounding area, 1743 people, mostly from downtown St. John's but some from other parts of St. John's and also some who came in from other areas of the Province and happened to run into the petition. The prayer of the petition has to do with housing:

WHEREAS many hundreds of low income families and individuals in St. John's are housed in dwellings, apartments and bedsitting rooms that are unfit or unsafe because they are cold, leaking, poorly floored, constitute serious fire hazards or are plagued with mice, fleas and sometimes rats and ants;

WHEREAS there is also insufficient housing appropriate for persons with disabilities, single persons, senior citizens or small families;

WHEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador be requested to initiate immediately a multi-million dollar housing development program with several components. For example, the advancement of funds to home owners and landlords to upgrade their properties to acceptable standards and to make them accessible. The demolition of houses that cannot feasibly be repaired with home owners provided a house for a house under low repayment conditions. The expropriation of landlord owned houses that cannot feasibly be repaired and their replacement with appropriate housing built by government for rental purchase by residents.

Mr. Speaker, there is a desperate need for housing in St. John's, a desperate need for low income families. I want first to congratulate the federal government for extending the RRAP program for another year. The RRAP program, I might mention for the benefit of the Member for Burin - Placentia West, was terminated by the pervious federal government and was reinstated by the Chrétien government for two years, $100 million over a two year period and now they have extended it for a third year. It is not enough, I agree with him, it is not enough. We would like to have a lot more but given the present fiscal realities it is certainly more than they planned to do this year because they were planning to cut it out. So we are grateful for that.

I also want to thank the people who participated in the petition. The churches who placed them in the back of the churches, the people from Emmaus House, the Gathering Place and Emmanuel House and the people who attended the public meetings that we have been holding. I want to thank hon. members opposite and on this side of the House for supporting the need for housing in St. John's in the private members' petition that I presented in this House on May 10, 1995. St. John's desperately needs a program to replace the housing, most of which was thrown up after the Great Fire of July 8, 1892. A lot of that is still there and it needs to be replaced. There is a desperate need.

The fire hazards in downtown are abysmal. We met recently with the fire department and they are really afraid of the problem in downtown. We saw it several years ago when we had that Harvey Road fire, it is still there. The menace is still there. Houses need to be made more fire proof then they are. A lot of houses are not properly insulated as far as heat is concerned. Many houses are leaky and have to be re-roofed so that people can live in them comfortably. Many people in downtown St. John's are unable to secure any fire insurance at all which indicates the sad state of the housing in many parts. So what has to be done, I believe, we have to have a government program, a plan to replace all that bad housing. We just cannot gut it out and replace it with commercial property. What we have to do is have family owned dwellings as much as possible so that we give a stability to the area and we also have to have good rental properties for people who want to rent.

They tell me in the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing that there are 1,300 names looking for social housing. Families, single persons who need small accommodation, accommodation for disabled people and I believe that we have to look in our budgets at new ways of handling this problem. One way is for the government to build new houses, as we have been doing. New housing, new apartment buildings and so on, infill or whatever.

Now, that costs a fair amount of money because in addition to building them -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

DR. KITCHEN: Just a few more minutes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister have leave?

By leave.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, very much.

We need, I believe, to have new thoughts about how to handle this problem because in addition to building we also have to perhaps subsidize the low incomes of the people who cannot pay the full amount of rent. Perhaps what we need to do is convert some of the non-profit housing that is presently available in St. John's and in other parts perhaps, but mostly in St. John's, some of it, not all of it but some of it, so that we can make the units available and that will be cheaper. At 25 per cent rent, even if we keep that, or 30, whatever we want to do, that will make some units available for people without having to build any new ones.

Another way to do it is to subsidize private landlords because there are some landlords out there with accommodation and sometimes government pays senior citizens, they pay 25 per cent to be accommodated in a private senior citizens residence, and we have it for other than non-seniors as well. I can see that we could subsidize, pick out some good private buildings that people have and say, alright, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing will assign the people to these buildings and we will pay 75 per cent of the rent and the other person will pay 25 per cent of the rent. That will mean that you will not have to build new things. We will get more value for the money and we would also be able to control the kind of accommodation that people have to live in, because right now some people are living in very bad accommodations.

I am requesting, on behalf of the people in this petition, now that the federal government has done part of its part, I would like very much for the provincial government in the Budget to put some money into housing. The people of St. John's Centre who signed this petition will be looking at the next upcoming Budget and will be directing me as to whether I should support that Budget or not.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, it my pleasure to support the petition presented by the Member for St. John's Centre concerning the need for government programs to increase the quality of housing in the St. John's area, and indeed not just the St. John's area but throughout the Province. It is particularly notable in the city where fewer individuals own their own homes and must rely on rental accommodation. Anyone who represents a St. John's district knows that housing is probably one of the most persistent and ongoing problems that residents face. Obtaining quality accommodations at affordable prices is very difficult for people of little means.

The Social Services Department takes very little responsibility for ensuring the quality of housing other than to approve or not approve particular locations. They do not play any active role in obtaining proper housing for people, and as anyone knows basic housing, a decent, warm, affordable place to live, other than food and clothing, is one of the most basic requirements of a healthy life and in fact it is regarded as a human right.

We have had tremendous changes in St. John's over the last number of years. Big changes had been made to the housing stock in the late 60s and early 70s when some of those RRAP programs and neighbourhood improvement programs were developed, and there were significant changes made. New housing developments were created in Virginia Park and other parts of St. John's to provide housing for people but the problem persists due to increase in population in St. John's, sometimes people moving in from other parts of the Province and also new families forming or new accommodations being required.

Boarding houses are a particular problem, people with rooming houses and renting rooms, often illegally, and people who have no other alternative are forced to live in these kinds of accommodations, so the need is there. It is a basic and fundamental need and I think it is time the government played a significant role in trying to resolve it.

The Member for St. John's Centre has suggested some creative approaches and I think that all these need to be looked at. Rental accommodation alone is not enough. There should be some form of assisted home ownership, Mr. Speaker, whereby people are enabled to afford accommodation, and as owners or potential owners by virtue of some program people take a particular pride in their accommodations. There have been some successful programs. The one that is co-shared by the city, the non-profit housing, provides excellent accommodation, but it is only for a certain number of people and a certain segment of the income level.

There is a much more basic need for people to have proper housing alternatives available to them. The waiting lists for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation are lengthy and people are always looking to where they are on the list and how soon can they get accommodation. I know that the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation has made significant improvement in some of its own housing in the last number of years. Improvements to Buckmaster's Circle for example, no doubt at significant cost, have made a great improvement not only in the look but also in the quality of the accommodation that is available there. You have changes now being made on Livingstone Street and other housing areas. Co-op housing is another alternative that has been cut out by the federal government but other programs ought to be considered in that area as well.

There needs to be creative solutions but there also needs to be a commitment. I think it is not enough for the government to get in the House as it did today and congratulate the Government of Canada for extending the RRAP. We need to have some commitment from the provincial government to participate as well. We do know of course that there are significant fiscal difficulties that this Province faces but the basic housing needs of the people of this Province have got to be given the very highest of priority in government actions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I too look forward to the next Budget and ask the minister to respond to this real need.

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

MR. REID: Yes, very briefly, Mr. Speaker. I want to say sincerely, I want to congratulate the Member for St. John's Centre. I think in the past couple of years the hon. member has done a tremendous amount of work in his district and he does make a good, reasonable point in regards to the housing situation especially in his district, but I suppose all over the City of St. John's.

I have to say to the House that we do in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation take a certain amount of responsibility for the government's policy as it relates to housing, but the hon. member also knows that rules and regulations governing housing mostly come under the municipality when it comes to fire regulations and living standards and so on. In his case the City of St. John's would have to take a certain amount of responsibility for accepting the fact that according to him and some people some of these places are really not inhabitable.

I have to say that we as a government support these comments and these initiatives. For me to stand and say that we as a government would initiate a program next year which would include millions of dollars of funding towards housing, the hon. member, and I think everyone in this House realizes, that I'm not in a position to do that. We are not at the present time. I have to I guess in the next few days, and my staff, evaluate what the new RRAP or the introduction of the continuation of RRAP will mean and what it will cost the hon. government.

But I will say to the hon. member and members of this House that by the time we are ready to go into the budgetary process for next year we will have made by that time a presentation outlining some ideas that we have in regards to a continuing of a housing program in this Province. What magnitude I can't say at this particular time.

I do want to finish by saying congratulations to the hon. member, and I think he is doing a wonderful job. I'm hearing from people in his area and around the St. John's area commending him for what he is doing in trying to help the homeless and the people of the Province who are in dire need of decent, adequate housing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 140 people in the District of St. Mary's - The Capes. The prayer of the petition is similar to many I have presented in the House this session, and this is the last one, I believe. The prayer of the petition is as follows:

To the House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;

Whereas the Janeway Child Health Centre has served the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and their children for more than twenty-five years as the only acute care children's hospital; and whereas the people of Newfoundland and Labrador show their support for the Janeway by contributing millions of dollars every year to enhance the services provided by the children's hospital; we, the undersigned, support the continuation of a stand-alone children's hospital to provide quality health care for the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this is one of the many petitions I have presented on behalf of the people of St. Mary's - The Capes on this important issue. Over the past year or so, we have heard the plans of the Minister of Health and the Government of this Province to rearrange the health care system, and part of that rearrangement is to move the Janeway up and adjacent to the Health Sciences Centre. This has certainly created some major concerns as we listened just, I believe it was, last week, when the Member for St. John's East presented a petition with over 50,000 names on it from Newfoundlanders throughout the Province who are concerned, and I, myself, have presented, I believe, upwards of over 1,000 names now from St. Mary's - The Capes on this important issue.

The reason people are concerned about it, the reason they are giving me, is that they are concerned that the feeling that is felt at the Janeway Hospital now by parents who bring their children there, and indeed, by the children themselves, is that it is a hospital that is designed for and catering to children, and children only.

While we know that we are on fiscal restraint in the Province, and that the government has to work under extreme circumstances sometimes to get the most use and the most value for the dollars they spend, there has to be a concern that the children of our Province are definitely being treated with the utmost care and in the proper way. And I believe that down at the Janeway Children's Centre, of which I have had the experience of bringing my own two children there over the past number of years on a couple of occasions, I believe there is a feeling at the Janeway that it is no doubt a full-time children's hospital, and it certainly creates an atmosphere when you walk inside the door. It certainly gives the parents of the children a comfortable feeling when you walk inside the doors of the Janeway. And I guess the concern is that once this new centre is put up adjacent to the Health Sciences Centre, where it is close to an adult hospital, that this situation with the children's hospital will evaporate in time.

It seems now that the petitions that have been placed on the Table of the House of Assembly by many, many thousands of Newfoundlanders are, in one sense, going unheard. It seems the minister is still planning on making the move to a building adjacent to the Health Sciences Centre, so I guess all we can ask now is that the minister, in his wisdom, and I ask his department, to take into consideration the concerns of parents and children in the Province, and make sure that the plans to put a new building next to the Health Sciences Centre, will make it to definitely be a children's wing to itself, a place where, when you walk in there, you recognize that it is for children, and children only.

I believe that we have to maintain what is at the Janeway, even if it is now going to be in another building; I think that is a foregone conclusion. I think we have to try our utmost to maintain that feeling of a children's hospital within the walls of the new centre as it has been at the Janeway.

Mr. Speaker, as I touched on before, I had the opportunity to bring my own two children to the Janeway for operations shortly after they were born, and the staff and the nurses, the doctors, the complete staff of the Janeway, were second to none, and I believe we will maintain that whether they are in the Janeway or some other building. But I go back to what the purpose of this petition is, and that is to create a children's hospital. Whether that is in the building down in Pleasantville, or wherever, I think it is very important that we maintain the feeling of a children's hospital within the walls of this new centre.

I put forward this petition today on behalf of these residents, because it is a concern of the residents of my district. One of the `whereases' in the petition refers to the millions of dollars that have been raised to help improve the facilities at the Janeway. I, myself, have taken part in many functions that have raised dollars for the Janeway Hospital, and I am sure that all districts of the Province have, when we look at the telethon on an annual basis. Mr. Speaker, these dollars that have come in from my district are being followed up today by this petition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MANNING: - that the people of the Province and indeed the people of St. Mary's - The Capes want to keep a stand-alone hospital for the children of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support my colleague regarding the Janeway Hospital. The last day I spoke on a petition, I didn't get an opportunity to tell the minister - I didn't get leave - so I will start with that today I say to the minister, on what I support on the re-organization here and what I said on June 29.

I said, I support -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the minister asked me, what did I say and I will tell the minister, he is interested in this thing. I said, I support consolidation of services, we are going to get efficiencies, eliminate maintenance costs, overhead costs so we have more dollars to use in direct care - I support that, I stated that. If we can have extra departments opened, when people leave work, come in in the nighttime using the same facilities for longer periods, I support it. I support other diagnostic testing over long periods whether it is in the one facility or under one roof or wherever it is. These are things I support. And at the time - the minister, too; I think the minister was in the same building there - I said: The record in the past, I have not seen fulfilled, commitments they set in the past. It remains to be seen if what they are indicating really happens. I said: I will reserve judgement and see if that will happen.

Now, I don't support, I say to the minister - and I have said this: I do not support combining operating rooms; I say to the minister, I don't support for adults and kids, the one operating room; the minister said they would be sharing those. I don't support the one emergency department. When you are talking about delivering an anaesthetic to older kids, young kids, adults, delivering dosage of medication, the margin of error is very great. And I know of instances and an instance of a family member who was given ten times a dosage which almost resulted in death in an emergency department and the incident goes back to about fifteen years ago, fourteen, fifteen years, numerous instances. There is too high a risk when you mix adults and children in emergency departments in operating rooms. If it is an MRI or if it's x-ray and things of this nature, if we can combine to get efficiency in the system, Mr. Speaker, I am very supportive of sharing facilities to get extra dollars in the system.

Now we have a Rehab Centre that was announced for closing all under moving into the Janeway hospital now, and the transition, I understand, is supposed to take place by March 31. And just recently now, with the latest announcements that $80 million must be found, possibly within the health care system, if it does, the bulk has to come from institution budgets across the Province, there is going to be a very serious problem in meeting the plans that are set out by re-organizing and relocating, especially when it is going to take - and I think the minister has made some reference, I don't know if the remark is attributed to him, but the general remark to the health care corporation anyway, is about $100 million might be needed now in capital expenditures to put everything together, to shut down from the Janeway, the Grace and to move them together there. That is a fair amount of money when we have a budget total net expenditure of about $800 million. We have revenues, of course, coming into the system, too. So, I find it is going to be very difficult to do. I cannot support emergency departments with kids and adults in there and anybody within the profession will tell you and the professionals there will tell you that that is not a good mix.

Mixing young and old people alike in certain services can be a deadly mix. Other services can be delivered, reasonably efficiently if we can extend the use of certain equipment that is there beyond the regular working day to accommodate working people and so on.

There is some potential for improvements in the system, combining human resources, whether it is the laundry service, whether it is certain laboratory testing - and numerous areas of services can be combined. I say they can be combined with certain efficiencies but we have to look at, in light now of shifting budgetary demands and the budgetary demands are shifting on an ongoing basis; they shifted since August and this Fall, with the Budget we had to find $60 million.

Now, we are going to be looking for nearly a quarter of a billion dollars over the next couple of years, and with the major cuts to come in the health care system, I have severe reservations whether we are going to get what was announced on June 29; on what the department and what the health care corporation have been advocating since, I have severe doubts whether we are going to get what the people thought they were going to get delivered under this system, and that remains to be seen. I said at the time, I will wait patiently to see if they will fulfill what they stated to us. We are going to see, and I would be the first to say if they do, if it does happen - or if it does not, I will certainly be first to indicate they haven't fulfilled what they said they were going to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I will just have a few words on the petition that was presented and the comments by my hon. health critic. I am not setting a very good example as Minister of Health, I have to tell you, because I'm dying with the 'flu myself.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) talking too much with other people. I told you to be careful.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I guess what goes around comes around, my friend, the Member for Grand Bank would say.

The comments made by the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes and the comments made regarding the Janeway by the Member for Ferryland are really comments that to some degree - some of the comments are very hard to disagree with. In fact, one can't disagree with them. When one reflects on the level of service, the quality of care, the commitment of staff, the magnificent work done by the Foundation of the Janeway Hospital in raising money and public awareness, when one comments upon and commends all of the good work that has gone on in the facility and by others around the facility, certainly no one can disagree with that. I concur with them in saying that the Janeway has been a first-class paediatric facility, that the Foundation has done a good job in raising money to help it out.

Both members basically said today, as best I could read into their comments, that providing we do what was announced in a proper way, they would be able to support it without any problem. That was really to locate the services from a building that is obsolete to a new site on the Prince Philip Drive adjacent to, contiguous with, and as part of the operation of the Health Sciences Centre. As I have said before in the House, I want to refer to it again, because it is a near-perfect example of what can be done and what, in fact, has been done in health care in terms of moving facilities.

If anyone has the chance or has had the chance to go over and visit the H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Clinic, they would find there, by national standards and by national acceptance of what is being done there, probably the finest cancer clinic providing the best cancer care of any clinic in Canada for cancer patients. What is happening over there in terms of the relocation of that facility is really a reflection and a mirror of what will happen when the Janeway is moved.

We will have dedicated paediatric space, we will share facilities and services that are appropriate to share, and we will cause to be created dedicated services where they are appropriate to be created that will be exclusively for the use of children. I want again to assure the hon. members, both of them, that it is this government's commitment to ensure that we will cause the transition to take place, cause the re-establishment of a new Janeway building to happen over at Prince Philip Drive, so that when it does happen it will be something that the people of Newfoundland will be proud of, will be pleased with, and, at the end of the day, will be better served by.

We can do what we have committed ourselves to do because we have already done it, Mr. Speaker, in the relocation of the cancer clinic over there at that site. I can only commend the hon. members for their positive attitude toward the thing, given the fact that we do it right. My commitment to them and to the people of the Province is to ensure that it is done right and that, at the end of the day, paediatric services in this Province will be better and more appropriately delivered than ever before.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it will become apparent as we go through the afternoon whether we, in fact, will adjourn today or tomorrow. We are largely in the hands of the Opposition. It is all the same to me. I am here tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: To my friend, the Member for Grand Bank, I just said that it will depend largely on the Opposition whether we adjourn today or tomorrow.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Definitely tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Definitely tomorrow, and perhaps today. But I understand that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Pardon?

MR. SULLIVAN: Put `Chuck' there and we will finish today.

MR. ROBERTS: That is a very tempting offer, I say to my friend, the Member for Ferryland, to ask my friend, the Member for St. Barbe to take over, and we will finish today. That would be very tempting from a whole host of points of view. What I was going to say to the House is that we will first of all ask the House to go into committee and deal with the four bills which are at committee stage. There are some amendments we need to deal with, and we will then call third readings and start working along. The last two to be dealt with will be the Hydro bill and the Boundaries bill, and when we finish that we will invite His Honour to attend upon us. My understanding is that His Honour may be pleased to give assent to such bills as we have passed through third reading at that stage, which I am confident will be everything standing on the Order Paper to be passed.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, could we first begin with Order 33 and then we will go on to Orders 34, 36, and 37. These are the ones my hon. friend for Grand Bank and I discussed behind the Chair yesterday. No surprises. There are amendments to the first order which is the Limitations Bill.

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Limitations." (Bill

No. 38)

On motion, Clause 1, carried.

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

MR. REID: I have a number of amendments and I think my hon. colleague across the way has a copy. I do not need to read them all. I will just table them. It is to Bill 38, a number of amendments to Bill 38.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, if I might?

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

MR. ROBERTS: I think most of these amendments are relatively straightforward but I will address each, and if the committee wish they can deal with each when we come to them. The first is to Clause 8 so unless any member has an amendment to offer to Clauses 2 through 7 then perhaps you could call those and when we get to Clause 8 I will address the amendment moved by my friend for Carbonear.

On motion, Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive, carried.

Shall Clause 8 carry?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment to Clause 8. It is one of the ones moved by my friend for Carbonear, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the Registrar General of the Province. The amendment requires just a brief comment, I think. It is to repeal, or to strike out, subclause 2 and to replace it with the following. My friend for Humber Valley and my learned friend for St. John's East have copies of the text, but for other members of the committee let me read it.

'Notwithstanding Sections 5,6,7,9, and 22, where misconduct of a sexual nature has been committed against a person and that person was (a) under the care or authority, (b) financially, emotionally, physically, or otherwise dependent upon, or - and the `or' is important because it shows these are in the alternative, or (c) a beneficiary of a fiduciary relationship with another person, organization or agency, there shall be no limitation period and an action arising from that sexual misconduct may be brought at any time.

Now, three comments, Mr. Chairman. First of all we are here dealing with civil proceedings only, of course. There is no statute of limitations on criminal code offenses but this bill has no bearing on criminal matters. We are dealing with civil proceedings, including, for example, the actions brought against, among others, the government as a result of the matters that went on at Mount Cashel, in some cases twenty or twenty-five years past. The principle is one which the House endorsed at second reading.

Secondly, we have added the phrase; `that there is no limitation protection extended to a person who is a beneficiary of a fiduciary relationship.' That came as a result of a discussion in the Standing Committee and I think is a good amendment and we are prepared to accept it. It would mean for example, the government which could arguably be the beneficiary of a fiduciary relationship - it is the other way around, my friend says. The beneficiary of a fiduciary relationship would be the young person who would say, in my example, be the director of child welfare that the government would not be enabled to shelter behind a limitation for it nor ought we to be, so we are quite prepared to move it forward.

We have dropped, members will note, a phrase in the previous one, `has charge of the other person' and the reason we dropped that is when we began to look at the amendment proposed by the committee we came to the view - we being myself with the advice from the drafters and the lawyers dealing with this matter - that sub (a) under the care or authority includes anybody who would also fall under (c), has charge of the other person. So dropping that latter phrase, `has charge of the other person' has no substantive effect. With that said I commend the amendment to the committee, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a brief comment on that.

Clearly the effect of the amendment is to not only make sure that the actual individual's specific perpetrator of sexual misconduct but in fact those persons, organizations or agencies that have responsibility for an individual are also not sheltered by a limitation period. The reworking of that provision to ensure that was done I believe by the advisers to the Minister of Justice and then the idea of including clause (c) as a beneficiary of a fiduciary relationship was for the purpose of ensuring that the category of fiduciaries was not limited by the words that were used there but in fact, was using a legal phraseology that has received recognition in the Supreme Court of Canada in one or two cases that deal with the notion of trust relationships or fiduciary relationships. So I think that the amendment here is a salutary one and is in keeping with the intention of government not to shelter individuals or organizations in circumstances such as are discussed here where there is sexual misconduct. By the very nature of it, it gives rise to long term consequences and consequences that may not be apparent for many, many years.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I never attended the meeting on the committee. I think my friend from St. John's East was there at that committee. Was that one brought up at that - that particular clause was discussed. However, I did have some reservations on that one from the outset. I had marked here that only an individual, not an organization and a trust relationship so to speak because everything was in clause 8(2) talking about a person who commits a misconduct of a sexual nature and then it goes on to say, in a position of trust or authority with respect to that other person - person again in Section B and person again in Section C. In the last part of it the person against whom the sexual misconduct and so on, all person, nothing to do with an agency or organization or anything else, all in the singular. So now this has been addressed in this particular amendment. So that covers this section and the concerns that I had with it, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 8 as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 10, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) amendment, the third last word in clause 9 is, `has' it should be `had'. It is simply a misprint but if perhaps by consent we could simply amend it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It should be `had'.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, it should be `had'.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion clause 10, as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 11, carried.

Clause 12.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: We propose to move, and I believe again this is a suggestion of the committee - I think perhaps the Law Society raised the point when they appeared before the committee - we propose to move, as a new sub (5) in this clause 12 - this is one of the amendments moved by my friend from Carbonear - the wording that now appears as sub (4) of clause 14. The reason for that is the wording of clause 4 of sub (14) simply is in the wrong place and it could cause some difficulty if left there, so I would move that we add a new subclause (5) to clause 12, which says: Notwithstanding paragraph 12.(2)(b), an action shall not prejudice or detrimentally affect the purchaser who purchases for value in good faith property which is the subject of that action.

I so move, Sir.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion clause 12, as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 14.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: The amendment to clause 14, Mr. Chairman, is to delete subclause (4).

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion clause 14, as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 15.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is an amendment to subclause 15, and that is consequential. It is to amend subclause (15)(1) by adding after the number 13, the words and figures, "and subsection 14(3)". That simply, I think, is a clarification. It is not a new principle, but it makes it clear that the ten-year limitation period would not run as against a person under a disability.

Again, I was not at the committee meeting but my recollection is that is a point that was raised either by a member of the committee or by a witness before them, so I would move it, Sir.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion clause 15, as amended, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Limitations." (Bill No. 38)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 34, Bill No. 47, "An Act Respecting Provincial Offences".

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of amendments to this as well. Perhaps my friend, the Minister of Education, will be good enough to move them. I could then undertake the burden of explaining them. I cannot move them because it is my bill, but again my friend from Humber Valley and my learned friend from St. John's East have been provided with copies of them and I would be happy to address them when we come to them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, the amendment, paragraph 2(1)(c) of Bill 47 is amended by deleting the words "this Act" and by substituting the word and Roman numeral "Part II".

Clause 37 of Bill 47 is amended by striking out, wherever it occurs, the word "justice" and by substituting the word "judge".

Clauses 43 and 44 of the bill are struck out and the following substituted:

"Minister may order inquiry

43. Where a person dies and there is reasonable cause to suspect that that person died under a circumstance referred to in section 5, 6, 7 or 8 of the Investigation of Fatalities Act and the minister is of the opinion that it is necessary for the protection of the public interest or in the interest of public safety that an inquiry be held, the minister may order a judge to hold an inquiry."

Clauses 45 to 56 of Bill No. 47 are renumbered as clauses 44 to 55.

Bill No. 47 is further amended by renumbering clause 54 as subclause 54(1) and adding immediately after subclause (1) the following:

"(2) Where this Act comes into force before the Fatalities Investigation Act comes into force, section 43 of this act shall not apply, but sections 23 and 24 of the Summary Proceedings Act shall continue to apply, notwithstanding the repeal of that Act, until the Fatalities Investigation Act comes into force."

MR. ROBERTS: That is the problem.

MR. DECKER: You don't want the explanatory note, do you?

MR. ROBERTS: I will deal with that.

MR. DECKER: You will deal with the explanatory note.

I so move, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, to those who wonder what we are up to, let me say that when we come to the sections I will deal with them. The problem being addressed by these amendments is the one that my friend for Ferryland just adverted to. The problem is the two bills, the fatalities act and the provincial offences act, will come into effect at different times so we have to have a bridging mechanism in place. But let me deal with that at the appropriate time. Perhaps we could carry on and when we come to each amendment I will address it on its merits and try to convince the Committee to adopt the amendments.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a copy of the amendments to this particular act. The one I want to -

MR. ROBERTS: Let's (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, we will deal with it the same as the others (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 2.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: The amendment to clause 2, Mr. Chairman, 2(1)(c) we want to amend by deleting the words "this Act" and putting in the words "Part II." Because the term judge being defined to include a justice of the peace applies only to Part II, and if the Committee will permit, that is the part that deals with tickets. There is a role for a justice of the peace in the way in which we administer the tickets. So for the purposes of that part only the word judge will include a justice of the peace.

I move the amendment, Sir.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 2(1)(c) as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 37.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is an amendment to this, and that is reflecting the same point as I made earlier. Clause 37 is the situation where a person who is liable to pay a fine - and I believe my friend for St. John's East made some comment on this during the second reading debate. The bill now says a justice. We want to change that to a judge, which of course means a judge of the Provincial Court.

The amendment is that wherever the word "justice" appears in clause 37 it be struck and be replaced with the word "judge". The principle is that only a judge may extend the time for payment of fine, but the thing is that a judge may do so if he or she is so minded.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak to this briefly. I've had some discussions with officials of the Department of Justice and the Law Clerks to the House as to what do you do about a circumstance such as one I raised in the House last Friday from a constituent of mine. The matter was brought to my attention only last Thursday. An individual who had been in fact incarcerated early last week for failure to pay a fine which he was unable to pay.

The circumstances themselves are even more unjust when it appears that the fine was a fine of $125 which was imposed for failure to pay a $70 school tax assessment which apparently had gone unpaid for a few years. When the individual was summoned to court to answer to a charge of non-payment of the school tax he went ahead and paid the school tax but didn't go to court, assuming he didn't have to once he had paid his school tax, and apparently was convicted in court and fined $125. Some several years after that, being last week, he was approached by two members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary who were asking for the $125, of which he was unaware up until that particular time. The end result was - they gave him a few days to come up with the money, they weren't ungenerous in that respect - he went and sought legal advice from Legal Aid and was turned down in an application to try to set aside the fine, or deal with it legally in some manner or other.

Once that happened, he, having no source of income, went to - the police came back of course looking for the $125, he didn't have it and so was taken off to the penitentiary. He served about a day, he served from two o'clock one day to two o'clock the next, when he was released on some sort of temporary absence, but he referred to it as a form of house arrest; he was told that he was not allowed to leave his premises, to leave his home until Sunday afternoon at two o'clock, it's the house that he was boarding in and this individual, Mr. Chairman, who has no means of paying this fine, I note that throughout the act and most of part 3 of the act deals with how to recover fines, what actions can be taken to collect the fines, treatment of it as a judgement, they can seize the goods and chattels of a person, they can garnishee their wages, they can do any number of things to actually collect money from someone who owes fines, but the only people who will end up being put in jail for non-payment of fines, Mr. Chairman, are people who can't afford to actually pay the fines.

Now, there may be some circumstances - I should correct that, I suppose - there may be some circumstances, if they are fined $500 or two days in jail or the alternative, there may be a number of individuals who will say: Well, it is better for me to go to jail for two days than to pay $500, because it would take me more than two days to earn that, and as the Member for Ferryland said, get fed in the process. I don't know how well but perhaps get a few meals as well, so there may be individuals who have done that and I have known over the course of my practice of law, individuals who have taken the choice of doing the time rather than paying the fine because it was economical for them to do so. But there is a difference between that, Mr. Chairman, and a situation where someone does not want to go to jail, does not want to be treated as I guess, the equivalent of a debtor's prison, Mr. Chairman.

You don't, particularly in these circumstances, even Revenue Canada does not put you in jail for non-payment of your taxes, non-payment of your income tax. Perhaps they should, in some cases, but they don't put you in jail for non-payment of your taxes and, in fact, sometimes they elect you to Parliament. But in these circumstances individuals can have their wages garnisheed, they can have their property taken, etcetera, but they are not put in jail for non-payment of taxes. Now, this is a little step beyond that where someone has actually been fined and it is the collection of the fine that is at stake here.

I guess I would be a little happier if a Justice could deal with this because Justices of the Peace are a little more common in this Province. But the minister is now proposing to change to ensure that only provincial court judges can extend such time. I don't think that section 37 as a whole, is adequate to deal with circumstances where someone is unable to pay a fine. Section 37 (1) (3), calls upon the judge in this case to make a determination as to whether or not an application for an extension is likely to be used to evade payment, and unless he so finds, the Justice shall extend the time for payment by ordering periodic payments or otherwise.

Now, I don't know what the `otherwise' is, Mr. Chairman. Does `otherwise' give the Justice an opportunity to extend it indefinitely? Does it give an opportunity to make periodic payments? It uses the word `shall' here and it provides for a process whereby the individual is to give evidence under oath as to his circumstances, I suppose. I think, Mr. Chairman, we need to avoid at all costs, from a justice point of view, individuals going to jail because they are unable to pay a fine. We have had recently a case in the provincial court where an individual was threatened with jail for non-payment of a civil debt, a debt of several hundred dollars under a small claims procedure, and in the absence of an appeal that was taken, the individual would have been required to serve time because he did not pay a debt to another individual, some several hundred dollars.

Here, we have a similar possibility and, in fact, an actual example of someone having been incarcerated for non-payment of a fine where he was unable to pay the fine. This is the kind of injustice, Mr. Chairman, that has been decried at least from the time of Dickens and probably before. It is the equivalent of a debtor's prison where someone is put in jail because he cannot afford to - or is unable to pay a debt.

Now, there may well be individual circumstances where someone claims to be unable to pay but actually can afford to pay. There may well be circumstances of that nature, but I do want to say that I am not talking about this theoretically. I am talking about an actual circumstance that happened within the last ten days in this Province. This individual was actually incarcerated at a cost to the state, or to the Province, of more than the $125 fine.

The Province not only incarcerated someone who was unable to pay a fine, whereas if it were you or me, Mr. Chairman, we would pay the fine and fight about it later. If it was a question of an unjust fine or a fine that was improperly imposed we would pay the fine and fight about it later, or pay the fine and forget about it, but this was an individual who was forced to go to jail. We are not talking about abstract legal theory here and we are not talking about abstract justice, we are talking about real circumstances where, on the operating day-to-day basis, an individual is approached by police officers and told he has to come up with the $125 or face incarceration.

I think that has to change, and I am calling on government to find a way of changing that. I do not think Section 37, (1), (2), and (3) is sufficient for that. Section 38 provides for an alternative under the fine options program and says that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can establish a fines options program which says that if an individual is fined a certain amount of money, instead of paying the fine, he or she can work it off. Section 38 provides for a system being established in order to do that.

That was invoked after the Federal Government had passed enabling legislation under the Criminal Code of Canada providing for fine options programs. I remember back as long as twenty years ago there were fines options programs in the Province of Alberta, where I happened to reside for the study of law in the mid-1970s. That was a time when there were many prisoners in Alberta prisons, and perhaps prisons all over the country, who were there for the sole reason of non-payment of fines. It was recognized that this was an injustice, certainly in Alberta, because many of the people who were so incarcerated were, in fact, native people who were fined for various criminal offenses and were there because they could not pay the fines.

That injustice led to changes in the Criminal Code which permitted the fine options program and various provinces established them. I don't know if this Province has, Mr. Chairman, and it is my belief that people should not be imprisoned for non-payment of fines unless they are offered an opportunity to work off their fines through a fine options program and, in fact, refuse.

This is a fundamental question of social justice. I have an amendment to bring in which would add after section 38 a section 38(1), I guess. We haven't gotten to that yet. We are still discussing section 37. I wanted to say that I don't think it is adequate as it is to deal with the problem by in fact making it more difficult for a person to get access to someone to extend the time of payment of fine by saying it shall only be Provincial Court judges and not justices of the peace. It is making access to that process even more difficult. So I oppose this amendment and will be voting against it.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, I think that what the hon. member said - I have some concerns as he does, but I think what I will do is just move on to section 38. Because there is something else that I would like to bring up there that would tie in probably to section 37. So if we can get past that particular -

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, we will deal with my hon. friend, the Member for Humber Valley's concern. If I understand him, he will raise it on section 38 and we will deal with his concern then if that is - okay, fine. The amendment we have moved to section 37, I think, speaks for itself and I will say no more about it. If I understood correctly, my friend, the Member for St. John's East was not objecting to the amendment that I moved.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) harder (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I must, with respect, differ with him, Mr. Chairman. Because the Provincial Court judges sit - there are twenty-four of them and they sit widely throughout the Province, and they are widely available. We don't want to vest in Justices of the Peace who, in many cases, are untrained - and that is not criticizing them, and that is what they hold themselves out to be and that is what they are - or our officers of the court. We routinely appoint - in fact, the only people we appoint routinely as Justice of the Peace are the clerks and the officers in the court. We don't want to vest in them a power which we believe is properly vested with the judiciary, namely, the power to remit fines or to change the terms of payment of fines. For that reason, we must insist on the amendment, and would ask the Committee to accept it in the words I put forward.

The other point made by my friend, the Member for St. John's East -I have some congruence with him and I have some disagreement with him. It is a difficult problem indeed when somebody cannot pay a fine, and one must accept the reality, there are people who genuinely cannot pay a fine, or could pay it only at the price of wreaking hardship upon themselves or upon those for whom they are financially responsible: family, children, spouses, what have you. I acknowledge that can happen.

But in many cases, the person who says: I cannot pay a fine, simply does not want to pay the fine. I don't quarrel with that. The law accepts that. I don't quarrel with it. A person may say: I would rather have cable television for three months at $40 or $50 a month than I would pay a $100 or $150 fine. I don't quarrel with that as a judgement. But we have to be very careful to make sure that the law is enforceable. It is no good passing a law and imposing a penalty if we don't impose that penalty and make it stick.

I don't think my friend, the Member for St. John's East is objecting to the cable television situation. That is a choice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: We could collect that civilly or as we choose. We are asking the House to give us options. There is a balancing act. Where one really goes after the people who don't pay fines is where they persistently don't pay them and are defaulting. Those are the people who are invited to spend the weekend at Her Majesty's Penitentiary as our guest. My friend is shaking his head. He may have more knowledge of this stratum of the law than I do. We are trying to collect fines, we are trying very earnestly, and I believe very effectively.

The serious problem, in my view, is not with the person who will not pay a fine as opposed to cannot pay a fine. We have no time, I have no time, and I suggest the House ought to have no time for somebody who will not pay the fine. If he or she is not prepared to do so, then it is off the clink and we will give you what we give in our cuisine, and we will provide you with the accommodation we provide, and you serve your time and sobeit. Then you have paid your debt to society, no quarrel.

The problem is with the person who cannot pay the fine, or can pay it only at unreasonable hardship, and there are such cases - not as many as one might suspect, but there are some. The law says there is always an alternative. One can serve time in return. But we are asking another alternative where, if one can convince a judge - now, you don't need a lawyer to do this. One of the advantages of the Provincial Court judges is they can be far less procedure-bound, far less formal, far more approachable in that sense. We don't go up to the judge directly but go to the clerk and ask to be heard by the judge. One doesn't need a lawyer.

I have no hesitation in saying that any person in this Province who cannot afford to pay a fine, or can pay it only at vast and unreasonable hardship to himself or his family, we should have no hesitation in going into the Clerk of the court and saying, "May I make an application to Judge Jones, or the hon. Mr. Jones". There is no special form, you don't need a lawyer, you don't need any special fancy pleading, just get up and state your case. We are giving the judge here the power to make such inquiries as he or she may deem necessary. The person is not compelled to answer. If the judge asks a question, the person can answer or not as they choose. Then the judge may extend the time by ordering periodic payments or otherwise, and that is a very broad grant of power. That could be $1 a week until hell freezes over, if the judge were so minded and the fine were of that nature.

So, with respect, I must say we cannot accept the suggestion made by my friend from St. John's East. I would ask the committee to adopt the amendments I put forward, and if they are adopted to adopt the clause as amended.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion clause 37, as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 38.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 38 is - this is another amendment, is it, 38(1).

MR. ROBERTS: No, there are no amendments. Clause 38 would be as in the bill (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well, what was I passed here, 38(1), an amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair was of the impression that the hon. Member for St. John's East said he would be introducing an amendment to 38.

MR. HARRIS: If I may, for a moment.

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

MR. HARRIS: I have an amendment proposed to add a new section after section 38 - so that is the confusion - 38.1, which reads as follows, and I say to the Minister of Justice, as this is the one that I referred him to the other day that I had discussed with the individual in his department who drafted the legislation, as he suggested, which states as follows: Notwithstanding any other enactment, no imprisonment in default of payment of a fine, including a fine under the Criminal Code, payable to the Crown and right of the Province, shall be imposed unless the person fined is given the option to pay the fine by means of credit for work performed under a program established pursuant to section 38 of this Act, and declines or refuses to participate in such a program.

Section 38 is the fines option program enabling legislation to which I referred the committee in discussing section 37. The fines option program basically, the Province sets up a credit system to say: Okay, if you want to pay your fine in cash you can pay it. If you want to go back to the judge and ask for time to pay, you can do that. If you want to do your time, you can do that, too - your time in default - but for those of you who cannot pay we offer you the option of working off your fine in a program established by the Cabinet under the fine options system.

It is a relatively straightforward provision, Mr. Chairman, that provides - the enabling legislation is there already in section 38, and I believe it is already there under the Summary of Proceedings Act. It is simply a matter of establishing a credit system which may be $20 a day for working at some prescribed task, whether it be picking up litter on the streets or some other prescribed task under the fine options program. That would take care of these individuals who the minister says do not want to pay; they can pay but don't want to pay. Those same individuals are probably those who might not want to work at a daily rate under a credit system to work off their fines. They are then given three options. They either pay their fine, they do their time in jail, or they do their time by doing work. Now, Mr. Chairman, that option is there for the very reason that incarceration in a jail or prison is something that we regard as being a severe impact on a person's life.

There are those, Mr. Chairman, who to be incarcerated in a prison represents to them a terrific humiliation. Depravation of ones personal freedom by being locked behind bars and held in a jail with no right to leave and go about your business or be with your family. We are not talking about criminals here, we are talking about people who have run afoul of provincial - for the most part, people who have run afoul of provincial pieces of legislation. Someone in this case, who did not pay their seventy dollar school tax in 1986, was put in jail last week because he could not pay a $125 fine. We are talking about the depravation of personal liberty here. Now granted someone who chooses to work in a fine options program is, to the extent that he or she takes up the work that is required of him, is to some extent deprived of their liberty for the period of time that they have to do the work. That is a very different and perhaps more dignified response then one who is forcibly taken and thrown behind bars and told: you will not be able to go free until you have served the default period that was imposed by a judge. The argument may be: well we don't have a fines option program. We only have the enabling legislation. That is not a sufficient answer, Mr. Chairman.

I think it is very easy to establish a credit system. The credit system could be eight hours, seven and-a-half hours or six hours for every day in default that is imposed for a fine and instead of working out the default by being in jail at a cost to the taxpayer of $200 or $300 that the individual would be doing some task imposed under a fine options program through the parole service or adult probation. It is pretty straightforward, Mr. Chairman, to give a body the task of assigning work and having a reporting system. It seems to be relatively straightforward, Mr. Chairman, and if it is not in place then I don't think that we, as a society, should incarcerate someone who does not have the means to pay a fine. I think it is time to end the practice, Mr. Chairman, where it is possible for someone to go to jail because they are unable to pay a fine. I don't think Section 37 does it because it leaves it up to a judge to determine - not whether or not someone should pay a fine but it leaves it up to a judge to determine whether or not the fine can be paid in periodic payments. I think there ought to be a provision that ensures that people don't go to jail who cannot pay a fine unless they are given the option of working it off through a credit system under Section 38.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I move the addition of new Section 38.1 as has been copied to the Table. I am sorry to hear that the Minister of Justice had not received a copy beforehand. I thought that by giving it to Mr. Gover, as he suggested, that it would be discussed with him. I was not aware that he was going to be in Ottawa on Monday and for part of Tuesday but I did take up a suggestion then on Friday after the House closed, brought a copy of my amendment to the justice official, the former Attorney General for the Province who had been asked, I understand, to supervise the preparation of this legislation. My advise was that technically it was okay but that there may be obviously politic considerations, that would be up to the minister or up to the House to consider. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for -

MR. ROBERTS: No. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Humber East -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: The gentleman from Humber East was attempting to catch your eye -

AN HON. MEMBER: Humber Valley.

MR. ROBERTS: Humber Valley, I am sorry. - and not only that, I would like to be heard on the amendment, so my friend from Humber Valley, I will yield to him if he would like to speak to this clause 38 or to the amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) 38 (1).

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, sure, or do you want to deal with the amendment first?

MR. WOODFORD: I will deal with the amendment first.

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I -

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

MR. ROBERTS: I have no hesitation in acknowledging that I suggested to my friend, the learned gentleman from St. John's East, that he should speak with Mr. Gover - he is one of the lawyers in the civil division in my department - about it, but I will say that I have not had word from Mr. Gover. Now, that's not a complaint. I have been away for a bit and I was out of the office for most of this morning but I have also spoken to a law clerk who is charged with this bill and there has been no communication back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, this is true but I say to my friend from Ferryland, Mr. Gover, who of course is known to us all in another context, that Mr. Gover has become an extraordinarily valuable solicitor. The officials and those of my colleagues who work with him are very impressed by his legal work and I won't say, I don't know what the future holds for him, I don't know what it holds for any of us, but he came into the department winning a competition in the Public Service Commission, he was the recommended top of the list and we have always taken the top of the list in my time, and I am not surprised but I can tell you he has won a sizeable following among his clientele who are officials and ministers in the government, but anyway, let me come back, the problem would be the substance of this.

My hon. friend may be ahead of his time and I don't fault his approach, but this would oblige us administering the system of justice, would prevent us from collecting on a fine or an imprisonment being imposed in lieu of a fine unless the person had been offered and turned down a work program. Now, Mr. Chairman, the weakness of that is we may not be able to offer these work programs everywhere in this Province, so my hon. friend's amendment, as well-conceived as it may be and as well-intentioned as it may be, is simply impractical in my judgement and so I must turn it down.

We do hope to put up in place a work-option program but the Committee will note - and this was done deliberately and I believe prudently that we may do this, this is sub 2, we may do it for a portion of the Province or for the whole Province and that simply reflects the reality. We may be able to get such a system working here in St. John's or in Corner Brook or in other places but we may not be able to get it working in Nain or in Fortune Bay or somewhere else so it is just not practical to adopt the approach moved by my hon. friend, so with respect, I must ask the Committee to vote against it.

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

MR. WOODFORD: After reading the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I have concerns especially with regards to including a fine under the Criminal Code payable to the Crown in right of the Province. It is sort of - and the member can correct me if I am wrong after - a blanket approach to all fines, regardless of what they are for, what amounts or what have you. However, Mr. Chairman, maybe the minister, when he rises, could probably clarify something for me on this 38 (1) with regards to the bringing in of regulations under 38 (1), it is obvious from this particular section that government would have the option, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations establishing a program to permit the payment of fines by means of credit for work performed and, for that purpose, may -

Now , in reference to the hon. Member for St. John's East's amendment, I think that even if you put on the end of that a section (d) if you wish, and just said: If a person fails to comply with sections (a), (b) or (c), then a period of imprisonment is in order. If the regulations were brought in and he did not comply with the regulations that the minister has stated here in section 38(1), then it is obvious the rest will come into play.

You haven't got to put all this legalese into another complete section, 38(1). If the minister brought in regulations like he said here to deal with those top three sections and you just added another section, (d), to say exactly what I just said now, well then that covers everything. If you don't pay the fine, well then, like the minister said, be a guest at Her Majesty's Penitentiary for the weekend or for an extended period of time.

I've given some thought also, and it has been done for a number of years with regards to the non-payment of fines - and the minister can probably reply to what I'm saying now when he stands - for motor vehicle infractions. For instance, if you get a speeding ticket or something like that and it is not paid -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, exactly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That is what I was wondering right here. Because a lot of those fines, you know, that is where it hits most. People can't seem to be able to come up with the $75 ticket when you are nailed by an RNC of RCMP officer. They say: Oh my, I can't afford that. Two weeks after they get another one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well then, that could be covered under that one. A lot of those particular fines, like the member was saying, a $75 fine, or a $150 fine. There are some people going to get their licence renewed owing $300 and $400 in fines. They have all their points gone in one year. Before they get their licence that is it. You say: You pay your fine or we give you no licence, period, you can't drive. That is the worst thing you can do to an individual today is to deny him or her his or her driver's licence. The minister has to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, and they will come up with the money. The funny thing about it, they will come up with the money. I bet you the minister responsible for transportation, if he checked his records, I wouldn't say there isn't one person last year who was turned down from getting a driver's licence that - they probably didn't do it that minute, but I would say within a few days or a couple of weeks they were back, they had the money, and they had their driver's licence. So a lot of those fines are in that area. Because if it happens we will say for instance - if you have to get your licence renewed, the only thing about it now - oh no, that is motor - I think your licence now is every three years, is it? Or is that your motor vehicle?

AN HON. MEMBER: Your vehicle licence is annual.

MR. WOODFORD: Your vehicle licence is annual, your driver's licence, your personal licence, is for every three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: For five years. So it could be tied into there. But there is no harder place, there is no worse place, or touchy place to hit a person than to say to them on the re-registration of their licence or vehicle.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is the most effective.

MR. WOODFORD: Exactly. It is always collected. The person always drives his car the next week, the next ten days, or whatever.

Those are just a few comments, because I firmly believe that imprisonment is crazy for a lot of those fines. We go down, we pay the highest kind of fees, we pay the highest kind of rates, it is costing us - I don't know what a bed is costing us there a year at the Penitentiary, probably $35,000, $36,000 per cell, or something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible) $40,000.

MR. WOODFORD: Or $40,000. It is ridiculous for a lot of those offences. The other thing about this, what I'm talking about, is that when the person is given the option to pay a fine of $200 or go to jail for two days, a lot of cases today, most people would take the jail for two days. But if they went the other way and tied it into their licence or something, well, they wouldn't have the jail term. They would save there, plus they would be guaranteed to collect the fine at the end of the year. Guaranteed. So it is as one colleague of mine in the House one time referred to as a double-yammy. Not a double-whammy, it is a double-yammy.

Mr. Chairman, just a few comments on it just looking at it from a lay person's point of view, and in a realistic sense of how some of this what I call petty crimes and petty fines should and can be addressed. Because it ties in with the other section, section 37, with regards to the extension of fines. You can go to a judge and get an extension of fine, but people do not like walking into a courtroom anywhere, or into a Department of Justice building and talk to a law clerk, let alone a lawyer. They are completely intimidated when they have to talk to a lawyer, but when they talk to a clerk, even a lot of those people find it hard to go back, because I am after running into a lot of that especially as it pertains to child support. A lot of people will not go back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WOODFORD: And it is working, by the way. I am after talking to a lot of people who have gone through the system. They find their income has changed, their circumstances have changed, but they will not go back to court and make application because they do not want to talk to this one, or talk to that one, so those are just some of the comments.

The member was not here when I mentioned the fact that if he wanted to tie a clause in on the end of that, that would, as far as I am concerned, say the same things you are saying really in this except for referring to the criminal code, and cover the amendment as such.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, if I may explain why the criminal code is included in there. That is merely a reiteration of earlier sections of the legislation that uses the same wording when talking about the collection of fines in other manners, so that is why that's there. Earlier sections of the act which talk about how fines may be collected include fines which are payable to the Crown in right of the Province are also included. It is only where the Province is in fact collecting the fines.

For example, Section 34 which is the one that allows you to refuse a driver's license, as the Member for Humber Valley suggested, says where a person has not paid a fine, including a fine under the criminal code payable to the Crown in right of the Province imposed within the time allowed for payment. The similar provision is provided for there.

The Member for Humber Valley has raised an interesting point. He says, well the most effective way of collecting fines is to refuse to renew a driver's license. Well, if that is so effective why do you need to incarcerate people who are unable to pay fines or have the power to do that without offering them a work option? It even in fact fortifies the importance of having Section 38.1 to prevent it from happening. Not only is it unjust, it is not cost effective, it is unjust, and there are other methods of collecting that money, whether it is through the civil procedure.

I say to the Member for Humber Valley if someone has a motor vehicle and are going to get their motor vehicle license renewed or their registration renewed, well, they are obviously in a position, to some extent they have property. The Crown has the power to take the car away. Under other sections of this very same act, if what they want to do is chose to threaten to put someone in jail in order to get the money, I do not think that should be imposed without the opportunity to work the fine off.

I want to say as well, because I was talking about a particular example. It is interesting that the member says that if you prevent someone from getting their driver's license renewed that becomes a deterrent and will prompt the payment of a fine. This particular individual, as an example of how penniless he actually was, indicated that he was unable to even renew his driver's license because he could not afford to pay the $60 or $70 that is required to be paid now to get your driver's license renewed for a three, four, or whatever year period. He was saving up his money in order to be able to afford to get his driver's license renewed in the hope that he would be able to get a job that would earn him an income.

Let us keep ourselves grounded in reality here. Not everybody has an income, not everybody has property, and not everybody has the ability to pay these fines, and no one who is in that position should be incarcerated, and section 38.(1) would prevent that from happening.

All of the remedies, all of the provisions of section 30, Part III of the Act, section 32, which provide for late payment penalty, section 33, which makes it a judgement by just filing in the Trial Division, section 34 - and I think section 34 -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I think the Government House Leader said that he is not going to accept it, and I accept the fact that his government is not prepared to make it improper and unjust to incarcerate people for non-payment of fines.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The minister has his own point of view, and I have mine, and that is up to him. I think it is unjust to incarcerate people who cannot pay fines, and I don't think the law should allow it to happen. I think the practice should end, and I think it should be made illegal.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. HARRIS: The practice of throwing people in jail because they cannot afford to pay a fine.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you do with them?

MR. HARRIS: All the remedies are here.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I will tell you, there is one person who is convinced and that is the man who spent the night in jail last week because he could not afford to pay a fine, and then was forced to stay at home until Sunday afternoon at 2:00 by order of a temporary absence from court. So, if he and I are the voices crying in the wilderness for justice for him, then let that be so, but I say to hon. members that there are sufficient provisions in here to provide for the collection of fines without incarcerating people who cannot afford to pay fines, and I would ask hon. members to support the amendment to the Act by adding section 38, which would prevent incarceration for non-payment of a fine without the option of working off your fine under a fine options program provided for in section 38.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few comments.

This particular bill has been considered by the Social Services Committee on two separate occasions and we did not, at that time, have presented to us this particular amendment. While in theory I understand where my colleague from St. John's East is coming from, I have some difficulty in accepting the amendment because of its impractical nature.

Mr. Chairman, we all feel for those people who have to go to prison for the non-payment of fines; however, there is a practical implication in that in certain parts of this Province it would be totally impractical to have a direction to a judge to have to provide for a credit for work program.

So, I cannot support the amendment; however, if the Minister of Justice would undertake some kind of an analysis whereby there would be some practicality to the provision then certainly probably in the future it might be able to be considered. At the moment I don't see where adopting this particular amendment would be effective or would serve the administration of justice in various parts of this particular Province. Therefore, I would be voting against the amendment as proposed.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

While there are certainly degrees of merit in the approach the Member for St. John's East is using, I don't think it is practical to implement. If I am reading it correctly, the Member for St. John's East is saying that your fined, and everybody has to be given the opportunity to be able to work off that fine, in other words, before they would be incarcerated. I think that is the general intent of that amendment, to apply it. I am indicating that might be, maybe in the long term, the cheapest process, too, on the system, because incarceration, as we know, is expensive, but I don't think at this point the framework is in place to give everybody that option to be able to work off a fine. If everybody wanted to do that our system probably would not be able to deal with it, but it would be suitable, maybe, to designate a certain section or area of the Province where you could develop a program where people might do it. It might be much better than the rehabilitative process, and reduce cost in the long term, but I don't think within the framework it is possible or practical or cost-efficient at this point in time to do that, and for that reason I am not going to support the amendment even though there is some merit in the general intent of what is there.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is the understanding of the Chair that if the amendment moved by the hon. Member for St. John's East were to carry, it would, in fact, constitute another clause, namely, 38.1. So I now call the vote on 38.

On motion, amendment to clause 38.1 defeated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 43, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, one of the amendments moved by my friend, the Minister of Education, was to strike out 43 and 44 and put in, for them, a new wording to be called 43. We will subsequently - if this is accepted - renumber the succeeding clauses but let us put that aside for the moment.

The new wording of 43, which has been provided, I believe, to my friends opposite, would be this - there be a side note, minister may order inquiry. And 43: `where a person dies and there is reasonable cause to suspect that that person died under a circumstance referred to in sections 5, 6, 7 or 8 of The Investigation of Fatalities Act, and the ministry is of the opinion that it is necessary for the protection of the public interest or in the interest of public safety that an inquiry be held, the minister may order a judge to hold an inquiry.'

Now, that is straightforward, Mr. Chairman, but let me say a word or two: 43 or 44 as they appear in the present bill, are reproductions without any change of two sections that are found in the old or the present, if you wish, Summary Proceedings Act. I think they are 22 and 23; don't hold me to that, but they are there word for word the same. This bill was prepared, in fact, some time ago and another group of drafters, as I recall, were working on the bill we now know as the Fatality Inquiries Act. The Fatality Inquiries Act substitutes a new summary proceedings procedure and the new procedure is the one set out in the amendment I have just moved. Now, it will replace the old procedure.

There is one other point I want to make. When we come down to the enacting clauses I have a further amendment, because the two acts may come into force, in fact, almost certainly will come into force at a different time. We will need a transition clause to deal with that. So the amendment I moved simply puts into this act, the Provincial Offenses Act, the new inquiry ordering procedure that the House has already approved, in fact, in the Fatalities Inquiries Act. With that said, I move the amendment within the terms I have read.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The minister just answered one of the questions I was going to ask. Why has this amendment here in clause -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, this section, this particular amendment to Bill 47, "An Act Respecting Provincial Offences" - I was going to ask the minister why this amendment and why this section at all in The Provincial Offences Act? Why this section at all under inquiries, when it is, almost verbatim, in The Investigation of Fatalities Act? That is one of the questions, I think bar none. I know there is reference to The Summary Proceedings Act but in The Fatalities Act it says that The Summary Proceedings Act would be deleted and substituted with this particular clause. So, could the minister explain that to me, please?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, the answer is straightforward; the question is well taken. The Fatalities Inquiries Act deals only with inquiries into fatalities, by definition, and section 26 or clause 26, if one wants, of the Fatalities bill, which is Bill No. 36, as my hon. friend has said, is almost word for word the same as the amendment I moved. There are a couple of minor changes, really affecting editorial matters.

The reason we needed a Provincial Offences Act as well, is the Provincial Offences Act deals with inquiries over and above fatality-related inquiries. It is 26 of the Fatalities Inquiries Act; it is almost word for word the same, as my friend says.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, but they are editorial differences, there are no substantial differences between the two.

Part 4 of the Provincial Offences Act, which is where we now are, deals with inquiries of any nature, including for example, go to 42, and 42 is, where there is a fire, we can have an inquiry and that's sometimes used, and in the other parts of part 4, sections 45, 46, 47, 48 deal with the way the inquiry is held. It shall be held in public and gives the powers of the judge and all these things. So, what we are doing in part 4 of the Provincial Offences Act, is setting out the constitution for inquiries, the ground rules, the rules of order, and Standing Orders, whatever you want to call them, for public inquiries. And one type of public inquiry are those that deal with fatalities, and we simply want to incorporate the two regimes and bring them together.

Now, to be candid, I should have picked it up when I reviewed the bills prior to them coming in, but I didn't. I mean, if I am at fault to that extent, then sobeit, but we have picked it up subsequently, so there is nothing more to it than that. But we do need both, we do need section 26 of the Fatalities Act, which will, under the conditions there stated, allow the minister to order an inquiry, and we also need part 4 of the Provincial Offences Act which sets out the ground rules for inquiries and including the one section that deals with the inquiries into deaths; because 43 and 44, my hon. friend, the ones we are repealing, deal only with death situations. If he looks at 43 and 44 of the POA, the bill before the Committee, he will see that they deal only with death situations, so I think that answers his question; I hope it does.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, but as the minister just said, this particular section of the bill only deals in cases where there are death situations, or inquiries, but the whole Fatalities Act really, deals with death situations.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) Provincial Offences Act deals (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That's right, but you would think, you know and just an aside, and I question it especially as it pertains to section 5 of the Fatalities Act, that the investigation of the Fatalities Act, you would think that section 5 (a) would cover all that: as a result of violence, accident or suicide; and so on, unexpected - You would almost think that some of those things would be covered, especially when this particular act came up first; after reading it, you would think it was all covered but yet -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) 43, sections 5, 6, 7, 8 (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that is right, they covered it, but then again that is almost exactly what is there. But it makes you wonder sometimes, Mr. Chairman, with all the legislation. With regard to the rest of section 43, this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and the section 43 of this act, I have nothing else to say about it. That was one of the concerns I had with regard to the same clause.

MR. EFFORD: `Jack', (inaudible).

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is interested in putting up his stocking, and I guess if he wants to, he can go home and do that. Meanwhile, the adults are discussing legislation in the House, but I was hoping I would have the minister's attention.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) carry on.

MR. HARRIS: I think the amendment here seems to deal with the problem that I raised on Friday -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, whether it was changed because I raised it or not, I don't know. I do know that I raised it, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and perhaps somebody was listening and brought it to the attention of the minister. I think in fact, the minister may have stepped out of the House on Friday when I raised it, but I do know that there was at least somebody else listening, because there are amendments that deal with the questions and problems that I raised on Friday. And I am about to raise a couple of others.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I guess the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) giving you a hard time (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I guess, either the press or the minister is disappointed that they weren't able to get together outside.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Maybe we will have a chance to do that at some point in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: While the minister was absent just now, I was saying that I raised these questions on Friday in relation to the operation of section 43, and I think that the amendments deal with the problem raised. But I wonder whether the minister has also considered the provisions of section 26 of the Investigation of Fatalities Act which refers to the Summary Proceedings Act. We have already been past the Committee stage on that and I don't know whether the Minister of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I have been looking at section 26 and section 30 of the Fatalities Investigation Act. There are references to repealing of certain sections of the Summary Proceedings Act or, in fact, under section 26, the reference is to an inquiry being conducted within the parameters set out in Part III of the Summary Proceedings Act. I don't know if that needs to be fixed or not during this session of the House, but, because of the two acts being developed independently, it appears there may be some difficulties in the overlap of these two acts, such as there were in section 43 of Bill 47.

I think that the amendments to section 43 fix up the question that I raised on Friday, but I just wanted to draw that other question of the fatalities act to the attention of the minister and the Law Clerks, that there may need to be changes to section 26 and section 30 of the Investigation of Fatalities Act, as well.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 43 as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 44 be deleted?

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, the recommendation - yes, okay, and then when we delete 44, then we will deal with another amendment.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 44 as amended, carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clauses 45 to 56 as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall renumbered clause 54 carry?

MR. ROBERTS: No, Your Honour, please, there is an amendment to that. This is a real doozer.

First, let us renumber clause 54 as it is in the bill - it is quite a long clause - as 54(1), and then I will move a new 54(2).

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 54 as amended, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I want to go on to move a new subclause (2). I will invite the Law Clerks to have a look at this because the numbers may be confusing. The Law Clerks will straighten that out. They are conferring even as I speak.

The two bills will come into force at a different time. The Committee will note that the Provincial Offences Act will come into force, either in whole or in part, upon proclamation. We intend to proclaim it probably as of the first of April. Certainly, the sections affecting municipalities will not come into effect before the 1st of April to allow them to make the adjustments when Mayor Murphy gets through giving me hell over this issue.

The new Fatalities Inquiries Act could be up-and-running not by proclamation but by the act on the 1st of September, 1966.

AN HON. MEMBER: 1996.

MR. ROBERTS: 1996, I am sorry; I thank my friend.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is retroactive, is it?

MR. ROBERTS: It is not that retroactive. That is even before I came into the House. I came into the House on September 8, 1966, originally.

So here is the amendment. There is a new sub(2), and the law clerks can straighten this out editorially at the end of the day: Where this act - and this is the Provincial Offences Act - comes into force before the Fatalities Investigation Act comes into force, section 43 of this act shall not apply, but sections 23 and 24 of the Summary Proceedings Act shall continue to apply, notwithstanding the repeal of that act, until the Fatalities Investigation Act comes into force.

Now, I assure the committee, and I can take them through it at whatever length they want, that makes sense. What it means is that until we get the Fatalities Investigation Act up-and-running the inquiries procedure will remain that set out in the Summary Proceedings Act, 23 and 24, notwithstanding the fact that 43 of this new act has a different procedure. Now, you can have that again, Mr. Chairman, but I cannot say it any more clearly. I think that is it.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, it is clear but the only other question I would have with it is why clauses 43 and 44 were struck out. Forty-three is covered under 5(2) of the amendment, because it would be covered once the Fatalities Investigation Act comes into place, and in the meantime would be covered by the Summary Proceedings Act, but what about section 44?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Section 44, Minister, is struck out. What reason would that be under autopsy; it comes under autopsy under that section. Why would that be?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Forty-four deals with autopsies, and autopsies are dealt with under the Summary Proceedings Act, but when the new Fatalities Inquires Act comes into place it will put into place an entirely different procedure for autopsies.

If my friend looks at the bill he will see that 43 deals with inquiries into death, and 44 deals with autopsies, so when the new Fatalities Inquiries Act comes into place it puts into place a new procedure for autopsies.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No. I am (inaudible) makes sense. My understanding is that the provision that is here is the correct one.

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The Summary Proceedings Act will remain in force until this new act is proclaimed, and that will be before the Fatalities Inquiries Act is proclaimed.

MR. WOODFORD: What I cannot understand is why take out and delete 43 and 44, put 43 back (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: As Henry Higgins says: By Jove, I think he's got it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No? If I may have a minute to consult with the law clerk.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: That is the answer, in the last words of the amendment, sections 23 and 24 of the Summary Proceedings Act which deal with autopsies and inquiries shall continue until the Fatalities Investigation Act comes into force.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Exactly. By Jove, he nearly got it, and if it had not been for the law clerk I would not have got it either, but there is no legislative hiatus is the advice I am given, and I think my friend from Ferryland concurs. The last words of that amendment, sections 23 and 24, shall continue to apply until the Fatalities Act comes into force.

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

MR. WOODFORD: What the minister is saying is that sections 23 and 24 are really 43 and 44.

MR. ROBERTS: In essence, yes, almost word for word the same.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 54 be amended by including subclause (2)?

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion clause 54, as amended, carried.

Shall the renumbered Clause 56 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: We have gone beyond that amendment but I guess this is a question from an editorial point of view. Looking at the amendment it says; Clause 2, the Summary Proceedings Act shall continue to apply notwithstanding the repeal of that act. We can deem that cleaned up, can we?

MR. ROBERTS: The, that and that has been cleaned up. It is just a typing error. Also, there may be some question about the numbering of the subclauses of Section 54 and the law clerks will straighten that out, Your Honour. Everything in 54, including the amendment we just passed, will be there when it next sees the light of day as an act instead of a bill.

On motion, renumbered Clause 56, carried.

Motion, that the committee report having passed the bill with amendments, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, Order No. 36, that is the Smelting Bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 36, Bill No. 46, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act."

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, just a brief word. I said basically what I wanted to say at an earlier stage. We have some concerns as to the approach of the government with regard to the Voisey's Bay find, in the nature of their approach, I suppose, for want of a better phrase, Mr. Chairman.

The taxation regime was covered under another bill on which we have spoken, and this one basically has to do with a requirement for a smelter at Voisey's Bay if such a creature can be shown to be economically feasible. Indeed there is an onus on the company to build the smelter unless it can prove that it is not economically feasible so to do, or it can prove it is unreasonable due to certain probable market related factors or so on not to do.

The current law regarding mineral taxation was put in effect about a year ago and we have already, as I indicated, brought forward some amendments to that which are going out to committee for public study sometime, I think, in February of this year. In concert with that law there is now this law regarding basically the industrial benefits package that would accrue to the Province in a project such as Voisey's Bay. One has to wonder if the approach by this administration to the Voisey's Bay `problem' is the proper one, whether or not a negotiated solution rather than the imposition of law is the proper one, that a revenues agreement be struck with the companies concerned and that an industrial benefits agreement, including a smelter if need be, be struck as well with the companies. In that way we can keep our existing mineral taxation in effect, which as, in the inducement power to keep on increasing the size of a growing mineral exploration sector.

You know there are concerns as expressed by many people in the industry that approaching the Voisey's Bay issue with regard to revenues and industrial benefits from a law point of view rather than a negotiation point of view could have a detrimental effect on ongoing industry.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I sit down.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Order 37, Mr. Chairman.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act." (Bill No. 50)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, that completes the work before the Committee. In fact, everything has now been brought forward to third reading except the Mineral Rights Tax Act which, of course, has been referred to a Standing Committee and we will deal with that.

Let me, before I rise the Committee, thank the Chair, my friend from Trinity North and the other members of that committee. They had three or four very complicated bills referred to them and I believe they dealt with them expeditiously and very effectively. I think the fact that we have seen some amendments here in the House is a tribute to the efficiency of the committees. I want to thank the Chair and all the members of that committee for their assiduous application.

With that said, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could rise the Committee and deal with the amendments and then we will - I was going to have a word with my friend, the Member for Grand Bank but we may as well adjourn the House for the day. We are not going to finish today. We can either do a bunch of third readings or we can wait until the morning and do third readings on everything in the morning, as my hon. friend wishes. We can adjourn now and I understand the Speaker intends to invite us for a -

AN HON. MEMBER: I agree with you on this time.

MR. ROBERTS: Bill 100 has been referred.

Your Honour, would you rise the Committee, please?

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, wish to report tremendous progress in passing of Bills No. 46 and 50 without amendment and Bills No. 38 and 47 with amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, amendments read a first and second time, bills ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank members on all sides for their co-operation and tomorrow we will meet at 10:00 a.m. I understand there is consent to that, and we shall start at the bottom of the Order Paper and leaving aside Hydro. We shall start at the bottom of the Order Paper on third readings and we will ask the House to deal with third readings from the bottom up, as it were, thereby proving the wisdom of the thesis held by many of the people of this Province, that we do everything bassackwards in this House in any event. The last bills we will deal with, we shall deal with the Hydro bill and when we have dealt with the Hydro bill we will deal with the House of Assembly Electoral Boundaries Bill. When we have dealt with that we will all go home and get ready for Christmas.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend, the Member for Grand Bank, the reason I insist on doing things from the bottom up is that I have been influenced by him in the three or four years that he and I have been together behind the Chair.

I move, Mr. Speaker, the House adjourn until - hold on now, my friend, the Member for Bonavista South is on his feet and he either wishes to leave the room or to make a speech.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I did not think that the Government House Leader would let it go without saying something but Bill 100 has appeared on this Order Paper for a number of days -

MR. ROBERTS: No, it is not on the Order Paper.

MR. FITZGERALD: I noticed now that it has not appeared and the Government House Leader talked about going through all the bills that appeared on the routine proceedings of the House. I would like to ask him why Bill No. 100 has not appeared these last number of days. Because it is a bill I think that could make a lot of difference to people out there today who are in need. I think it would make a great difference to a lot of people at this time of the year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the bill is not on the Order Paper because it shouldn't be on the Order Paper because the House has ordered that it be referred to a committee, I believe, of my friend, the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, my friend, the Minister of Health, and my friend, the Minister of Social Services. I know that they are working on it because I have met with them and their officials on at least two occasions. It has not come back as yet, but the government has made a commitment, the government will honour that commitment. The bill is not on the Order Paper, and it is not on the Order Paper by order of the House. The Clerk could produce the journal of the day we debated it here at second reading. That is the answer I make to my friend, the Member for Bonavista South.

Unless there is something further, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow, Thursday, at 10:00 a.m. In the spirit of Christmas, on behalf of the Speaker, I invite everybody, even the Member for Burin - Placentia West, to come and have a glass. But I must warn my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, the glass is liable to contain legal alcohol and he may want to approach it gingerly.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 10:00 a.m.