The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise hon. members that the M.H.A. for Bonavista South, Mr. Aubrey Gover, has agreed to serve as the acting Minister of Justice. He will also assume responsibility for the position of Attorney General on an acting basis.

I express my appreciation to Mr. Gover for agreeing to serve in an acting capacity. I have given a great deal of thought over the past few days to filling this portfolio. It is, for obvious reasons, preferable that the individual appointed to these particular positions have considerable experience in the legal profession and, at this point in time, considerable knowledge and experience in constitutional matters. Mr. Gover and I have discussed these requirements and, because he is of the same opinion, Mr. Gover agreed to serve in an acting capacity until such time as Edward Roberts, a well-known lawyer and former member of the House of Assembly, is in a position to assume the positions of Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I am very grateful to Mr. Gover for his co-operation and understanding and I have assured him that I will work with him over the next few months as he carries out his responsibilities as acting Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Edward Roberts is a senior law partner with Halley, Hunt, Barristers and Solicitors. He was called to the Bar of Newfoundland in 1965 and, in 1979, was appointed Queen's Counsel. In 1989, Mr. Roberts was appointed Master of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. His political experience dates back to 1963, when he served as an associate private secretary to the hon. J. W. Pickersgill. From 1964 to 1968, Mr. Roberts served as Executive Assistant to Premier J. R. Smallwood and, later, as Parliamentary Assistant. He was elected to the House of Assembly in 1966 and first entered Cabinet in 1968 as Minister of Public Welfare, becoming Minister of Health in 1969 and holding that position until 1972. Mr. Roberts became leader of the Liberal Party in 1972 and served as the Leader of the Opposition until 1977. He became Opposition House Leader during the leadership of the hon. Donald Jamieson, from 1979 to 1980. Mr. Roberts served as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee from 1982 to 1984. Having been elected to the House of Assembly six times, Mr. Roberts did not seek re-election in the 1985 Provincial General Election.

Mr. Roberts has agreed to accept the positions of Minister of Justice and Attorney General, but will require time, approximately until late January, to complete legal obligations that can only be completed by him, personally. He will, of course, have to seek election to the House of Assembly within a reasonable time after accepting the appointment.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that Mr. Roberts has agreed to accept my invitation. He will bring to Cabinet and to the House of Assembly many years of knowledge and experience in the political field, as well as extensive knowledge and experience in the constitutional and legal fields.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is no harm to say that I think we have seen it all now. You talk about turning back the clock; talk about moving back to the politics of the 60s; talk about playing the politics of the past.

We have not seen this kind of situation develop for twenty years. Twenty-five years ago, almost a quarter of a century ago, the Premier, himself, was appointed to the Cabinet from outside the elected caucus, in an attempt to try to get him elected to the House. It happened in 1971 with Dr. Murphy, you will remember; members will remember Dr. Murphy and Mel Woodward and a few others like that, all of whom got shellacked when the election came up -

AN HON. MEMBER: Kitchen.

MR. SIMMS: Kitchen was not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, I don't think so - all of whom got shellacked in 1971. There are no modern day precedents for this occurring, none whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, and the Premier should know it.

Now, he had to go outside the caucus, obviously; it is a wonder, by the way, after his pontificating at the Liberal Convention a couple of weeks ago, about how important it was to get more women in politics, why he didn't choose a woman from the legal profession, or was that all just a bluff?

But, Mr. Speaker, let me say this: the biggest sham of all has to do with the poor Member for Bonavista South. The Premier has no confidence in the Member for Bonavista South, to serve in this capacity; he no confidence in his own back bench to serve in this capacity or his front benches for that matter, no confidence whatsoever. And I don't know why on earth the Member for Bonavista South would accept such a smack in the face unless, of course, he is being promised something down in January or so, when there is another shuffle, and I don't doubt, that is probably what would happen.

But I think the hon. member should hang his head in shame and embarrassment; he should resign from the caucus. To accept this, Mr. Speaker, is unacceptable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They don't like this kind of politics anymore. They do not believe in this kind of politics, and everybody across this Province understands it. This is not acceptable. Make no wonder, Mr. Speaker, there is so much cynicism about politics and politicians in this country, particularly, now, in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SIMMS: We will see what happens with the other acting minister positions. We will see if everybody in the back bench there are going to fit into those slots, as well, or are they going to go outside again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Let me ask the Premier, related to the statement he just made, is this the testimony, in fact, to the problems he has in his own caucus? Is he not confident about the members in his own caucus? Does he not believe there is anybody over there capable of filling the position of Justice Minister and Attorney General?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, it is no such thing. I know it upsets the hon. members opposite immensely to see a person of Mr. Roberts' capability, political stature, and widespread acceptability being added to the Liberal caucus. That really upsets them and drives them around the bend, so I can understand the vehement attack. I can understand their doing it in a devious way in trying to attack the person of the Member for Bonavista South. That is not the point, Mr. Speaker. The point is clear. At any given time, you should have as the person holding the office of Attorney General and Minister of Justice, preferably somebody who has widespread experience and substantial background in the legal profession, a fairly lengthy background, at that. The hon. the Member for Bonavista South is new to the profession. He has been there for five years and out of it for the last couple of years. On the other hand, Mr. Roberts is a well-known lawyer, who has been involved for close to thirty years in the legal profession and in the public life of this Province. He is extremely knowledgeable in constitutional issues. Those are the reasons why he was chosen as an individual to give me some special help, at this time, that I need, because of the major constitutional issues in the country. It was a sound and sensible approach, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Can we expect to see more of this, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, with respect to the acting Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and the acting Minister of Environment and Lands portfolios? Can we expect to see the Premier go outside his caucus to fill those positions as well?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The question is so specious, Mr. Speaker, that it is hardly worth dignifying with an answer. Of course not. I explained the reasons why this particular portfolio was being filled in this way. It is not as though many commentators and others in the Province have not expressed similar views and opinions over the last little while. Now I know the hon. Members opposite want to make as much political fuss and try and gain as much political mileage as they can, but they are off on the wrong track, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that may be the Premier's view. I want to remind him his view is not shared by an awful lot of people these days in Newfoundland and Labrador, on this and any other issue. Now can he tell us this - he might not like the questions - but let me ask him this. How does the Member for Bonavista South's credentials differ from that of the Member for Humber West? Can he explain that so we can understand it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Wider years of experience and background in the practice of law - significantly different. Also, the Member for Humber West was appointed at a time when we did not have the major constitutional issue in the country that we have at the moment. So those are two very different circumstances that make the approach the Government has taken, I would think, quite understandable. Clearly understandable to the Member for Bonavista South, who acknowledged and agreed with the approach, that it was the right thing to do. So he has no quarrel with it. I do not see why the hon. Members opposite are so exercised, except they see it as clearly the right thing to do that will get major credit for the Government, and that offends them I know.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask him one quick final question. When does Mr. Roberts go on salary?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Obviously, when he is sworn in and takes the duty, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask a question to the Minister of Finance, who has neither qualifications or experience for that particular job. The Minister was quoted as saying over the weekend that harmonization of taxes is worth considering. Would the Minister care to explain this statement, in view of the fact that most other provinces of Canada have rejected such a concept?

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, Mr. Speaker. At the proper time I will be making a statement in the House as to what we will be doing in tax reform. This is not the time to comment on newspaper speculation.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister might call it speculation but they are quoting the Minister. The media are entitled to quote statements by the Minister, and the Minister should answer to this House for statements that he makes publicly.

Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister even say that he is considering it when it has been clearly shown, for example, that the housing industry and the construction industry will be devastated by such a move, and that the Premier's much daunted legal profession, for example, would be put at a decided disadvantage with firms competing from outside as would the engineering profession and other similar professions? How can the Minister even consider such a move in the face of these facts?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we have been holding discussions with a variety of groups as a result of the paper that we promulgated there at the time of the Budget and since sent out to quite a number of people. We have since had responses from eighty-five groups, and we have been sitting down with many of them and discussing their thoughts and reactions to what they thought might be proposed. We have had substantial discussions with the construction industry, and they expressed to us some of their fears, most of which are groundless. But as a result of the input that they have given us, we have been able to understand their position, and if we proceed in this area accommodations will be made as much as possible, not only for that industry but for any others.

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

MR. WINDSOR: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister has said that a broadened RST could be applied to a wide range of items, and the RST rate lowered somewhat to balance the impact. He has also said, and it is quoted in last weekends paper, that he is considering a business tax credit to reduce the burden on business and industry. How does he propose to reduce a burden on business and industry without increasing the burden on the private sector, or is he saying that he is going to further down load responsibility to the municipal level and to the private sector in order to give businesses this benefit, Mr. Speaker?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can see that we have provoked a bit of interest in this whole question of tax reform on members opposite, and all I can tell them to do is hold onto their wool until we make our announcement.

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

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

I have a question for the Premier, and before posing the question I would like to refer the Premier to a statement put out by his office on October 18, 1991 pertaining to a meeting that he held with the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation earlier that day. The statement says that the Premier and the former Minister both have agreed that the Minister should be relieved of the responsibility as a minister and as Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Now when I asked the Premier the question on Friday - and I refer the Premier to Hansard of Friday on page 2416 when I asked the Premier about the continuation of salary, and so on - the Premier said and referred to two individuals, "They remain ministers, Mr. Speaker, and will continue as ministers." I want to ask the Premier, which of these statements is correct? Which is the true one?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Both, Mr. Speaker, are correct. If the hon. Member cannot read and understand the English Language, that is a problem that he has, not that I have. Mr. Speaker, they have been relieved of their responsibilities. They do not fit in the Cabinet room and they do not perform the duties of the office, until -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) should not be paid.

PREMIER WELLS: If hon. members want to answer it themselves, they can, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

I just want to ask the Premier: How can he explain the statement coming out of his office, that both he and the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation have agreed that the Minister should be relieved of responsibility as a minister? How can the Premier explain then, on Friday, telling the House and telling the people of the Province that he is still a minister and, of course, he still continues to be paid? He cannot be both, a minister and a non-minister.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is fairly simple. Somebody has made an allegation, has made a complaint to the RCMP and an investigation is underway.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not the question.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, it is very much the question. Mr. Speaker, I consider it not to be appropriate that if an investigation is underway by the police into some allegation about a minister, that he should be continuing to function as a minister during the period of that investigation. The allegation may be totally and completely without substance whatsoever. For all I know it has no merit whatsoever. But I do not know, I am not going to prejudge it. So the Minister is relieved from participating in the office of minister and as a minister until such time as the investigation is completed. That is no reason to inflict a pre-determined punishment by cutting off salary. That is all that was done, and the Opposition want to make something of this. This is a perfectly normal approach, nothing abnormal about it by any parliamentary standard.

Now, it is regrettable that the hon. Members opposite keep sinking down to these political lows. I thought the Leader of the Opposition had indicated that there was going to be a new sense of decorum in the House. It seems to have disappeared today, to say the least.

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

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

It is too bad when the Premier does not like what is being pointed out to him as being inconsistencies again on his part. I ask the Premier: If what he says is correct, and what he says about the court case is indeed correct, why then would the Premier's office put out this statement on October 18 saying what it said, that the Minister should be relieved of responsibility as a minister, if indeed, as a minister, this was not the case. Why the notice of October 18, from the office? Why did you not tell the people of the Province the truth then, that the man was staying on as minister and would continue to be paid? Why not tell the truth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It goes without saying. For example, Mr. Speaker, the contract that the hon. members opposite negotiated with all the public service unions provides that if, for any reason, they are relieved of responsibility in this way, they go out with pay; they are not deprived of their pay. That is not unusual. That is perfectly normal.

Mr. Speaker, somebody has made an allegation, and it has caused an investigation to be undertaken. What the Government has decided, Mr. Speaker, is that it would be inappropriate for the minister to continue to discharge the responsibilities, not that he be prejudged and removed as a minister. He remains, and he is, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. He is a Minister of the Crown. He is relieved of the duties of office until this investigation is complete, but he remains a minister. Now, they may want to twist it around, and I can see them in their consternation now suddenly seeing the words `relieved of the responsibility', not `dismissed as a minister'; it does not say anything about being dismissed as a minister. It says he was relieved of the responsibility, and he has been; but we are not going to predetermine the issue and punish him by cutting off salary at this stage. What are the members talking about, Mr. Speaker?

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

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

Can the Premier, then, explain to the House why, in that very same statement, he said that both had agreed that the minister should be relieved of responsibility as a minister, and as Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. The Premier just now said that he is still the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. How could he say that? I mean, that's what is here.

MR. SIMMS: Make up your mind. Why don't you just admit you made a mistake?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the decision in this case was no different from what it has been in any other situation, that the minister is relieved of the responsibility, r-e-l-i-e-v-e-d not d-i-s-m-i-s-s-e-d, and there is a substantial difference between the two words. Now if the members want a lecture in the English language, to understand it, I am prepared to give it to them, but it is very, very clear what the situation is. The minister is relieved of the responsibility and the power of the office; relieved of the power of the office, to take him out of it so as to make sure that there can never be any doubt about the propriety or the thoroughness of the investigation, not that there is going to be a predetermined adjudication by me and a punishment invoked, as the hon. members want. It is very clear, and it is too bad the members feel such discomfort with the position they have taken.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister responsible for Forestry and Agriculture. On Friday last, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister responsible for Forestry some questions pertaining to the Kruger operations in Corner Brook. At that time, the minister stated that he had not had any specific requests from Kruger or Corner Brook Pulp and Paper pertaining to any problems at the operation in Corner Brook. In view of the fact that on the weekend, Saturday and Sunday, officials from Kruger's office met with the union representatives in Corner Brook, is the minister now in the position to inform the House of any new developments pertaining to their operation?

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

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, Mr. Speaker, I think my answer Friday would have indicated that we had not had any specific requests for specific assistance or specific considerations from Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. I did not indicate - I thought I had actually indicated otherwise, that yes, indeed, we had indications from Corner Brook Pulp and Paper that because of the conditions existing in the newsprint industry, world-wide, they were having difficult times, and pointing out various facts as they pertain to their operation. But I am certain that I indicated to the hon. member, at that time, as I have done through the media over the weekend, that we have not had, to this point in time, from Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, specific requests for consideration.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister now, after the meetings that were held on the weekend - and it is obvious from his answer that he still has not had any consultation with Kruger officials in Corner Brook pertaining to any particular problem - take it upon himself to have liaison with or speak to Kruger officials pertaining to this particular problem?

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, it may be a little premature. I have been hearing all the same rumours that the hon. member has been hearing with regard to the operation. There is no question that the pulp and paper industry is experiencing very difficult and serious times. Every mill in Canada - Abitibi-Price closed a mill in Ontario. Kruger is no different, they are experiencing problems, and I would not be surprised, Mr. Speaker, in the very near future, we may well be requested to have a meeting and to discuss the situation with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. If that happens, then we will obviously have the meetings that are necessary and listen and talk to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper.

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

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

Because of the uncertainty out in that particular area of the Province today, would the minister take it upon himself - and I feel that it is very important, especially pertaining to my district and the whole of the West Coast in general - to contact Kruger and see what kind of an answer they will give pertaining to their operations in Corner Brook?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: And I might add, before sitting down, the Premier says it is irresponsible. It was not irresponsible a year ago when I asked the same question in this House, Mr. Speaker (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, since there has been, in the pulp and paper industry, the condition that presently exists, there have been ongoing telephone calls and face-to-face meetings, keeping the Government, keeping me, apprised of exactly what the situation is, both with the two Abitibi-Price mills in Newfoundland and with the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper mill. I can say to the member, categorically, yes. Within hours from now, I will talk to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, if he feels it is necessary, or have my officials discuss with them the specific situation, if they have not already done so, as they may well have done.

Don't forget, if the management of Corner Brook Pulp and Paper were to decide tomorrow that they wished a meeting with the Government of Newfoundland, I would expect that that request would be directed to the Premier's Office. That may well have happened. But certainly, yes, I will talk to the officials of Corner Brook Pulp and Paper this afternoon and determine whether or not they have requested a meeting, and when, and everything else that needs to happen to allay the member's concerns.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) going to be a figurehead, in that case.

MR. FLIGHT: No.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member had indicated a final supplementary. I will recognize him again for a final supplementary.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: I did, Mr. Speaker. But, obviously, the Premier has made motions to me that he has had representation. Could I ask the Premier, then, if he has had any information in the last few days pertaining to the Kruger operations in Corner Brook, and could he inform the House of the problems?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I had a request for a meeting. I have not yet had a chance to speak to the minister about it because of other matters, but I readily agree. A meeting has been set up for later this week. I just say to the hon. member, if he is really concerned about the district, he will let these matters take their ordinary course without injecting this kind of a political dimension into it. It is unfortunate that it could cause adverse consequences rather than help. So I suggest that the member let the matters take their normal course. I can confirm for the House that I have had a request and have agreed to such a meeting.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Would the minister explain to the House what monies will be made available to the City of St, John's for the transition of the Aquarena from Government to the City of St. John's?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the transfer of the Aquarena is part of the process that is ongoing now in discussions between officials of the City of St. John's and my department, part of the mandate of the transition team that has been put in place.

The transfer of the Aquarena, specifically, does not involve any outlay of monies on the part of the Government. It will be a transfer of the facility with all its assets and liabilities as they are presently in place, including the staff. That

process in ongoing now and will be facilitated before January 1st.

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

MR. PARSONS: In light of the answer to my previous question, Mr. Speaker, is the minister confirming that the citizens of St. John's are going to have to pick up the tab, therefore causing a sizeable tax increase for an already over-taxed people?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, over the last few years we have been constantly improving the performance of the Aquarena, financially. We will be handing over that facility in good financial shape; we do not anticipate that a deficit will be needed to operate the facility, in fact, I have heard specific comments from the City, that they expect the arena will not incur any deficit and they will attempt to break even the operation when they are in charge of it, when the facility is in their control. As I said, we have improved the performance of the Aquarena considerably over the last few years, and I would think that the City will continue with that particular approach and it will not be a cost or a burden to the taxpayers of St. John's and the region.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, from what the minister has been telling us for the last minute or so, this is a viable operation, but, Mr. Speaker, in view of the Government's subsidizing of the Aquarena to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, how does the minister expect the City of St. John's to pay for it? Where is the money going to come from? Is this something magical that the minister has brought up? Where is the money going to come from, the hundreds of thousands of dollars they are going in debt every year now?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat the words of the Mayor and some staff who have been publicly commenting on the Aquarena. They have been saying, they anticipate that the Aquarena, with the economies of scale, the fact that they will be able to merge the Aquarena with their existing recreational facilities, perhaps -

AN HON. MEMBER: Used by the University, maybe.

MR. GULLAGE: - and perhaps used by the University, as well - they are also having discussions with the University - that they will be able, by way of management, spreading their management over that facility, as well as others, to streamline the process, continue with the work that we have done in streamlining the Aquarena and its management and staff, and in fact, not incur a deficit. I can only repeat those words of the Mayor and of the staff and I would hope that that would be the case, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I am not sure who is to supposed to answer it, but I will direct it, anyway, to the Acting Minister.

Two weeks ago, I drove in to St. John's from Marystown and I counted seven cars off the road on the Burin Peninsula Highway; as a matter of fact, I had to take one gentleman from his car and bring him in to St. John's, as his car was `bottom up' because the roads were not cleared.

This morning, Mr. Speaker, between Bay L'Argent and Terrenceville, I was an hour and ten minutes doing twenty-five miles. There was no plough on the road and there was about six inches of slush - may I ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, why?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in the areas of the Province where it is determined by staff on site - and these determinations are made that way - that there is need for ploughing, that ploughing has been done this morning, started at an appropriate time and continued.

I do not know of the specific stretch the hon. member is talking about, I will look into it and find out, but, I would like to point out to him that these decisions are made on the standard basis. A person, a foreman, and so on, determine the needs of the area and where the need exist, the ploughs are out. If, in fact, there was six inches of snow on the roads and there was any drifting, then there should have been some ploughs out.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister confirm that the real reason why the roads are not cleared in the morning is because they are not on a winter schedule, and will not be on it until sometime in December? And will he undertake to immediately have the winter schedule implemented in areas of the Province where the need arises before there is actual death caused because of negligence by his department?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the reason. As I indicated to the hon. Member, I know the winter schedule has not been implemented yet, but I also know that is not the reason there were no ploughs out, because in areas of the Province where the people in the areas thought there was a need for ploughing, the ploughs were out. There were ploughs out all over central and western Newfoundland last night and today. So, the mechanism is in place where, if the need exists, the ploughs can be brought out at any point in time. However, as I indicated to the Member, I will look into that stretch of the highway and see what happened in that particular instance.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Today the Canada Employment Center Office in Port aux Basques was under occupation by a group of concerned individuals who were left out of a programme brought in by the Federal Government, for the whole Province, as we were led to believe. It was disclosed last week that the officials of Canada Employment and Immigration decided to deny the southwest coast, from Codroy to Belleoram, an opportunity to participate in the Emergency Fishery Response Programme this year.

As the House of Assembly is probably aware, this is the forth consecutive year of a fishery failure in both winter and summer fisheries on the south and southwest Coasts. Will the Minister undertake to inform the House of the Province's position regarding this matter and, furthermore, will the Minister undertake to make representations to the Federal Minister of Employment and Immigration, as well as Newfoundland's Federal Cabinet Representative, John Crosbie, to have this discriminatory action reversed?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the question probably should have been directed to my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I can only tell the hon. gentleman that - it is a federal restriction, by the way, that was imposed by the Department of Employment and Immigration - no such restriction applies to any provincial funding. For example, we have a programme in the Department of Fisheries offering assistance to make-work programmes, and we have not imposed that restriction on that area.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is to the Minister Responsible for Employment and Labour Relations. I wonder if the Minister will inform the House who appointed the individual to arbitrate the recent dispute between NAPE and Treasury Board involving the teachers' assistants in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it was quite clear at the time and continues to be clear to everyone involved in it presently, that when the student assistants were in a strike position and on the street that, in fact, I, as the Minister Responsible for Employment and Labour Relations, asked Mr. Andrews if he would act as a mediator in that dispute, and he did fulfill that duty and has since submitted a report.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer, because the impression was left by the President of Treasury Board, who had been giving backhanded slaps to the Chairman, that he had been handpicked by NAPE.

I ask the President of Treasury Board then, why he refuses to accept the report as tabled by the person who arbitrated the dispute.

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

MR. BAKER: First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is not arbitration, it is mediation. Secondly, this was not a normal situation. We had a situation where a collective agreement was in place, there was no collective bargaining going on, and we were halfway through an existing collective agreement, and for reasons that are still beyond me, Mr. Speaker, a group of employees decided to go on an illegal wildcat strike. This was not a normal collective bargaining situation. Had this, in fact, been part of a normal collective bargaining situation, leading up to the signing of a collective agreement or attempting to get one, then the report, perhaps, would have been a little more significant.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, the workers are back to work. The situation that existed before the wildcat strike is still in existence. We are having a look at the hours that the hon. Member knows about, in terms of the usage in the school system, and we have agreed to ensure that they do not suffer through a seventeen-month wage freeze. But all of these conditions were in existence before the wildcat strike, Mr. Speaker, and, consequently, the report, which did not take into account the fact that this was not a normal bargaining situation, really does not have a great deal of meaning.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under the Financial Administration Act I would like to table two pre-commitments of funds. One pre-commitment totalling $2,097,816 to permit the commitment to tourism advertising contracts for the 1992 tourist season. The second one a pre-commitment of $550,000 against next year's appropriations to permit the awarding of contracts for the printing of 1992 tourism information literature.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I would also like to table the financial statements for the Province of Newfoundland's pooled pension fund for the year ended December 31, 1990, and just to mention that the pension fund during that year grew 16.9 per cent. There were 7886 pensioners on payroll having a total cost of $91.1 million annually. I would be pleased to answer further questions on other information that is contained in the document if Members were to ask them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to give notice that on tomorrow I will be presenting the following resolution in this hon. House of Assembly. It reads as follows; Whereas the Federal Government's policy of allowing foreign fishing inside the 200 mile economic zone has resulted in substantial reductions in fish stocks and drastically affected the livelihood of Newfoundland and Labrador fisherpersons; and whereas Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are capable of catching a number of these species given to foreign countries, for example, tuna, squid, and caplin; whereas foreign overfishing outside the 200 mile limit, in particular on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks has also resulted in substantial reductions in fish stocks; and whereas the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry is now in a crisis as a result of increasing quotas caused by reduced fish stocks; whereas the fishing industry is today and will be in the future the main strength of the Newfoundland and Labrador economy; therefore be it resolved that the Federal Government take action to terminate all foreign fishing inside the 200 mile economic zone and give notice to all foreign countries that unless the overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks ceases before January 1, 1993 Canada will take whatever action it deems necessary to protect its national interest; be it further resolved that the Federal and Provincial Governments immediately develop a joint management plan for the fishery; and be it further resolved that immediate improvements be made to the observer programme in monitoring the Canadian dragger fleet.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to briefly answer a question raised on Page 2417 of Hansard, of Friday, November 8 as raised by the Member for St. John's East. The hon. Member raised the question as to whether the Minister could advise the House as to whether or not all workers involved at Baie Verte mines have in fact been paid the maximum amount they were entitled to under Section 37 of the Act, or were there in fact more than 100 people who have not been paid? The information for the purpose of answering the question, Mr. Speaker, is clearly that the entitlements that those workers had, and were guaranteed that they would receive under Section 37 of the Act, have been met. Those entitlements referred to vacation pay and pay in lieu of notice. As outlined in the Act they have been met. There is a continuing question as to whether a further entitlement under the collective agreement that is in place has been fulfilled and the union representatives of the workers have been advised to contact the people acting on behalf of the receivers to see whether or not those provisions should be covered as well. All those entitlements under the act have been met.

MR. BAKER: Order 7.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Unimproved Lands (Redistribution) Act." (Bill No. 20)

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, this bill as indicated by the title itself is a Bill To Repeal The Unimproved Lands Redistribution Act.

That particular act was an act proclaimed in June of 1957, and under the schedule of that act, there were eight parcels of land in Newfoundland that had been identified for appropriation on the basis of paying thirty cents per hectare to expropriate.

In the intervening years, two of the eight parcels were, indeed, expropriated, and four were removed from the ambit of the act, leaving two pieces of land, at this point in time, that are still subject to that legislation. It is the intention of Government to repeal that act. There are two pieces of land, one belonging to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper in Corner Brook, for 1,920 hectares, and another small grant containing 600 hectares, owned by the estate of Charles Fox Bennett.

What we are saying is, it is grossly unfair, it does not even make sense, to have land, today, subject to expropriation for thirty cents an hectare. We are saying that if the Province should ever have need to expropriate that land, it will be done under normal expropriation procedures, and as a result, this bill calls for the repeal of that particular act.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the questions the minister will probably answer when he gets up to close the debate, is why the whole Unimproved Lands Act had to be repealed, and not just a section? Because, if I am not mistaken, the section pertaining to that Unimproved Lands Act is part 6 of the act, itself. Why do away with the whole act? My understanding is, also, from last year, that that particular part of the act was supposed to be integrated in I think what is now the new Crown lands bill, Bill 22. Just glancing at it, I do not see this particular Unimproved Lands Act integrated under the consequential amendments, repeal and commencement.

Now, maybe it is not, but my understanding was that it was supposed to be taken out of that particular act, repealed, and put into the new Crown lands act, at the same time, taking out part 6, which would be the problem that the ministers are having with the thirty cents per hectare. That would address those two problems. Now, maybe I am wrong, but I am pretty well sure that that was supposed to be integrated in this particular act. I don't see it there.

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

MR. BAKER: I am just wondering - because if the minister stands and speaks he closes debate, and he could deal with it. My understanding is, that would have been a route to go, and have a consequential amendment in terms of the new Lands Act. But my understanding is that the act, itself, is no longer significant and is repealed, and this is done this way, as opposed to simply waiting for the Lands Act to be passed, and then, as a result of that, a change or repeal of this other act comes into place. But it is an alternate way of going, that is my understanding, and it perhaps could have been done that way but was not.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he closes the debate.

MR. FLIGHT: Is there a problem?

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Is there something else? Go ahead, Rick.

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

MR. WOODFORD: If the act, itself, the Unimproved Lands Act -

AN HON. MEMBER: He spoke already.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am sorry. I understand, the hon. member has already spoken.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just on a point of order.

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

MR. SIMMS: It can be by leave, or we can just move into Committee in due course and you can debate back and forth then at that stage, whatever is easiest. I don't think the Member for Humber Valley has a whole pile of questions so perhaps by leave would be the easiest way.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. BAKER: To that point of order, I think it is probably better to do it by the leave route, simply because, before we get to Committee, I want to make sure the member states his position accurately and fully so that the proper information can be gathered, that is all. So, I don't mind his going that way.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley, by leave.

MR. WOODFORD: Just a couple of comments. My understanding from the bill, itself, was that the whole Unimproved Lands Act would be repealed. But the problem that the minister and his department have with the Unimproved Lands Act is with part 6. That is the particular part of the act that is causing the problem. Now, I have no problem about doing away with The Unimproved Lands Act; as far as I am concerned it can be integrated into this. But my understanding was that it would be then covered under this particular act. That's all my question is - the Crown Lands Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not in Bill 22.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WOODFORD: No, but my understanding was that it would go in there if any question came up about other parts of the act besides part 6. If not, that is okay, but if it is not in here, that means it is not going in, period, is that it, or is it going to be in based on an amendment?

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he closed the debate.

The hon. the minister.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of clarification, my understanding is - and I will certainly undertake to find out whether I am right or not. If I am not, I will provide the member with the information. My understanding is that The Unimproved Lands Redistribution Act that was proclaimed in 1957 dealt specifically with these eight parcels of land and nothing else. That was the act, so it was not just taking out section six, or seven of the act. The act dealt only with those eight particular parcels of land. And what the act said was that that land was identified in the schedule of the act to be appropriated at a rate of thirty cents an hectare. That is all that was dealt with in that particular act. The thirty cents was alright.

But you might as well repeal the act, because it only existed to deal with those eight sections of land. At the same time, it might or might not be relevant, but this particular act was tabled at the same time that Bill 22 dealing with Crown Lands was tabled and, of course, we all know that Bill 22 has gone through changes and reconsideration, whereas this did not, and it was on the Order Paper and it surfaced. But if that is not satisfactory information, I can get any other information the member needs.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Unimproved Lands (Redistribution) Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently by leave. (Bill No. 20)

MR. BAKER: Order 16, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Status Of Women Advisory Council Act." (Bill No. 35).

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The change is here, the amendments, quite a number. First of all, clause 1 amends The Status of Women Advisory Council Act by having the Lieutenant-Governor in Council designated minister to be responsible for the status of women. In the current act, it is the sole responsibility of the Premier, and that has not been the situation for quite some time. I think the first minister to break that trend was the present Leader of the Opposition, if I remember correctly, when he was designated as minister responsible -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: There was somebody before that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Before that, Charlie Power was over it.

MR. BAKER: Charlie, okay. For quite some period of time, then, the Premier has not been the minister responsible. Anyway, that change is made, and there are a number of amendments to various other clauses to take effect to that intent. However, there are quite a number of other changes here.

Clause 3 would amend section 4 by limiting the personal liability of a member of the advisory council. "No member of the advisory council is personally liable for loss or damage suffered by a person by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by that member in the execution of the office or in the exercise of or supposed exercise of, the powers given to the advisory council or to a member of the advisory council." This is a built-in protection against personal liability for serving on the Advisory Council of the Status of Women.

Clause 5 expands section 10 of the act. It, in a sense, expands the advisory council's powers, and I guess it is primarily (c) section of clause 5 that does that. There are a number of powers outlined, that the advisory council would have, "appoint, promote or remove administrative and secretarial staff" and all this kind of thing. So there is quite a list here that adds a little bit to the powers of the advisory council.

Clause 6, again, I guess, adds to their powers. They are given the power to make by-laws, enter into some contracts, establish funds and so on, and it allows them to accept donations. This perhaps would straighten out a situation that has existed for some years now, where the Advisory Council on the Status of Women found that it was cheaper to actually purchase a building on LeMarchant Road to use as their headquarters, so they purchased that building rather than rent because it was a cheaper alternative at the time, and it was discovered that they really did not have the power to do that. So, in essence, this gives them the power to own their own building; and this was, by far, the cheaper alternative at the time when they bought it. So, it would kind of straighten out that situation where they were in contravention of their own act by buying that building.

They have also entered into contracts, and there was some question as to whether they had the right to enter into contracts. They have done some contracts with the Federal Government, for instance, all of the contracts aimed at employment for women, and there was some question as to whether they had the right to do that. This would tend to straighten out that problem.

Let us see what else of significance is there. I guess these are the only really significant points, the change of the designated minister from the Premier to somebody designated by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and the expansion of their powers to take care of some situations that have existed for some period of time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I just want to have a-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well now, we have one good leader over here, and one good leader is enough. There is no one else over here who thinks they are quite capable, Mr. Speaker, of leading - not like those opposite. Of course, having said that, I should say to the member that perhaps that is what we saw happen today, that someone from outside is coming in to be set up as the next leader over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: So `Clyde' can go to Ottawa.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, so the Premier can move on to the national stage, where he wants to be.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to make just a few comments on this bill, An Act To Amend The Status of Women Advisory Council Act, (Bill No. 35). Basically, what the Government House Leader said is, indeed, correct. We have no problems whatsoever in designating a minister rather than the Premier to be responsible for The Status of Women. As the President of the Council so rightfully alluded to, there were a number of ministers when we were in government that were responsible for The Status of Women. The Member for Ferryland, myself, and the Member for Grand Falls, at different times, had that particular responsibility. My understanding is, a lot of the clauses here have been suggested by the Auditor General. Perhaps the Government House Leader could react, but there are some control measures being put in place here from the financial administration end of things that I believe have been recommended by the Auditor General. I look specifically at Clause 7, which would deal with the appointment of a director of administration. There are other clauses, subsequently, that refer to the setting up of accounts, and limited liability and so on, on members of the advisory council. So, I think, a lot of the clauses here are as a result of recommendations and observations made by the Auditor General; and, of course, any time where you are dealing with funds, public funds and so on, I think it is more than appropriate that we should do that.

I would like to make just one comment to the Government House Leader, with respect to Clause 14, where Section 18 of the Act is repealed and the following submitted, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations (a) prescribing the remuneration to be paid to a member of the advisory council;" I have no difficulty with that.

The one in question - and I raise this question on behalf of my colleague from Humber East, who is not here today because she is out with the constitutional committee - I know is one that there was some concern and discussion about when we were the Government, which was, the yearly salary of the President of the Advisory Council, and here we are allowing the Cabinet really, to set the yearly salary of the President.

My understanding of the concern is, as a result of that, that the President of the Advisory Council then, is not awarded or given or receives the annual salary increases that everyone else, say, would get, if it was a year of a salary increase. I think, if my memory serves me correctly, there were a number of years where the President of the Advisory Council did not receive an increase and a suggestion from my colleague as I said, for Humber East, is: is there any way it could be treated like other agencies where it is tied to the Executive Pay Plan, and as the yearly increases are awarded, then the President of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women would, consequently be given the increase of whatever it was, because what can occur here, based upon this is that you could go a number of years without the President receiving an increase, consequently falling far behind by means of salary, so I am just wondering if there is some possibility of that happening, without the Cabinet of the day, really I guess having to set the salary and then probably, stays that way for the duration of the term of the President; so those are the remarks that I have to make about it, Mr. Speaker. Overall I think it is an improvement and from what I understand, the Status of Women Council itself supports these recommendations, except for that one question about the yearly salary of the President being set by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and, if there is some way that that salary could be tied to the Executive Pay Plan, so that annual increases could be given accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister speaks now, he closes the debate.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I thank the Opposition House Leader for his comments and, I was just trying to recall - the situation was rather strange in that an amount was set and was not tied to any particular standard, and there was nothing in there. Now it seems to me that when we dealt with the new appointment, we, at that point in time, put it at a level comparable to something in the pay plan which you are talking about, although it was never specifically stated as such and I believe that since that time, what happens to the salary of the President is determined by the advisory council, okay?

Now, it is a very interesting point. Should it in fact be tied to and be the same as and stated as, the same as a certain level in the Executive Pay Plan, or should it not? It would perhaps straighten out problems that we would tend to have every three years; there is a new appointment every three years and this would solve some difficulty that we might have with that; it probably would be better if something were taken into account. Right now, it says: the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations, and I tell the Member right now, we pay the salary according to a specific level in the Public Service, but I do not know what that level is; so we are certainly willing to have a look at that, I will say to the Opposition House Leader.

On motion, a Bill, An Act To Amend The Status Of Women Advisory Council Act" (Bill No. 35), read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 20, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, "An Act To Establish The St. John's Centennial Foundation", (Bill No. 41).

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

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The intent of this Bill is to establish a foundation in the City of St. John's to use donations that are entrusted to it for charitable purposes. The object of this foundation is to provide care for the needy, promote the improvement of the underprivileged, the disadvantaged, to promote educational, medical, and scientific research, to promote recreational facilities, the conservation of human heritage and natural resources, and to provide for cultural, educational and other charitable purposes. Mr. Speaker, it requires an act established under the Province so that this foundation can be operative and can receive funding from the public and from corporate sources as well - fund raising. No such vehicle is available to the City of St. John's at this time and this particular centennial foundation will be wide-reaching enough to enable it to fund raise with an foundation in place to serve all of the purposes and objects as I have just explained them.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything in this particular piece of legislation which would be - the clauses in it are motherhood as far as I am concerned. I cannot see anything that would be questionable. It would be an avenue for the City so that any donations made to the city, like the Minister said, would be channelled into this so-called trust, I suppose, whether it be actual dollars, land, or what have you. They can disperse of it, I suppose, whichever way they wish and make the appropriate donations in due time. I do not see anything there that would be controversial or would require any particular questioning.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister speaks now he closes the debate.

MR. GULLAGE: I have a further brief comment, Mr. Speaker. As it says in the Bill itself there would, of course, be established a nominating committee consisting of the Mayor, the Registrar of the Supreme Court, the President of Memorial University, the Chairperson of the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council, and the President of the Board of Trade. They would meet annually at the call of the Chairperson to appoint members to the board which would oversee the operation of the foundation. It is a very straightforward Act, and as I said earlier, I think it is very necessary to facilitate giving on the part of individuals and corporations, and other fund raising, and it will enable the city to carry out a lot of programmes in the various areas that are identified in the objects of the Bill.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Establish The St. John's Centennial Foundation," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently by leave. (Bill No. 41)

MR. BAKER: Order 8.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel Act." (Bill No. 21)

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are two things that are done here. First of all it is to appeal Section 3, which automatically causes the appointment of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General as Queen's Council. The second has to do with the Legal Appointments Board. Currently, there is a board consisting of five members and their duties are to consult the Minister of Justice regarding appointments made under Section 2 of the Act, to recommend at the request of the Minister of Justice the names of suitable persons for consideration or appointment, and to make recommendations

"respecting such other appointments to legal offices in this province as may be referred to the board from time to time by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council."

Under the current situation, section 6 (2), "Three members of the Legal Appointments Board shall be appointed by the Minister of Justice and two members shall be appointed by the Benchers of the Law Society of Newfoundland."

The Minister of Justice has to ensure as far as possible that one of the members appointed by him is a member of the Law -

[A POWER INTERRUPTION DELAYED PROCEEDINGS FOR 24 MINUTES]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it agreeable that we now start? When we recessed the President of Treasury Board was introducing Bill 21.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the Fates, the difference in the Legal Appointments Board is that previously there were five members, and three members were appointed by the Minister of Justice, and two members appointed by the Benchers of the Law Society.

Now the change here is that the five members will be appointed by the Minister. However, the Minister of Justice must select two members from a list of seven people to be submitted by the Law Society of Newfoundland. So the Law Society of Newfoundland submits a list of seven, and from that list of seven, which is their list, the Minister of Justice picks two members to sit on the Appointments Board.

So it is a slight change in terms of the Appointments Board. It outlines the limits that the Minister of Justice can go. Section 2 (3) says he shall, "so far as practicable, ensure that among the persons appointed to the Legal Appointments Board," by him, "one will be a member of the Law Society of Newfoundland in practice and resident outside the metropolitan area of St. John's." This is to ensure that there is representation on this Board from the legal profession outside the St. John's area, and I think that is kind of important. "And one will be a member of that society who has been practising in the province for less than 10 years."

That is kind of important as well in that too often something like this would become the prerogative of individuals who have been around for a very long time and perhaps would tend to overlook the younger members of the profession. So we are ensuring that one of the appointees is someone who has in fact been relatively new to the legal profession and has been practising law for less than ten years.

Another clause, Mr. Speaker, Section 6 (4): "The Benchers shall ensure that one of the people appointed to the Legal Appointments Board by them will be a Bencher of the Law Society of Newfoundland, and that the other will be selected from members of that society " - that is, the Law Society - 'who are not actually Benchers.' So this allows the Benchers and non-Benchers to have representation. So, Mr. Speaker, some minor changes to the Queen's Counsel Act, and I would suggest this for the consideration of the House.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Make no wonder I have a bad back today after what went on in the Legislature. Very appropriate I think that we are talking about the Act To Amend The Amend The Queen's Counsel Act today. As my colleague pointed out to me, neither the former Minister of Justice is present, or the present Minister of Justice is present, or the future Minister of Justice is present, while we are here talking about the Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel Act.

MR. TOBIN: The elitist bill.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, elite - well, I do not know, elitists, I would not say it is an elitist bill. Because if my memory serves me correctly, that we, when we were a government I think, gave Mr. Roberts - or designated him as a QC, I believe at the time. Was it? I believe we did.

MR. TOBIN: We recommended him.

MR. MATTHEWS: We recommended him, yes, and (Inaudible) -

MR. TOBIN: We made mistakes.

MR. MATTHEWS: - I might add that, very deserving, I had no problem with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, no, no, very well deserved, I thought. A very distinguished gentleman in the law profession. They are all coming in - very distinguished gentleman in the law profession and public life of the Province, no question. But having said that I do not think that what we witnessed today can be justified, Mr. Speaker.

A couple of things I want to note about the Bill. That "Clause 1 of the Bill would repeal Section 3 of the Act which presently provides that the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General shall be appointed Queen's Counsel." Now I find this somewhat amusing because the former, very recent former Minister of Justice, when he became Attorney General, he accepted the appointment of Queen's Counsel, and uses the title I think, out and about.

MR. SIMMS: QC.

MR. MATTHEWS: QC, yes.

MR. SIMMS: Hon. Paul Dicks, QC.

MR. MATTHEWS: But now here he is after walking into the office of Attorney General -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Attorney. (Inaudible) a townie, a townie -

MR. SIMMS: Attorney, a townie, tomato, tomato.

MR. MATTHEWS: - talking like the townies, they call it "attorneys".

MR. SIMMS: Clyde calls it "Attorney General".

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, the Minister of Education calls it "attorney."

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: A Tory.

MR. SIMMS: 'Atory' General.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Education was not a Tory, he just hoodwinked the Tory Minister of Education by telling him he was not going to run, and went out and did the study, and then the next thing we knew he was on the ballot paper.

MR. TOBIN: Got the money.

MR. MATTHEWS: He got all the money for doing it.

MR. SIMMS: Look how red he is, look.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, make no wonder he is red.

MR. TOBIN: Top of his head is red.

MR. MATTHEWS: But what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is I find it somewhat amusing to have this Bill here with Clause 1 being repealed. The former Attorney General, having taken the QC designation, and now putting forward a bill to the House so that the current, or existing, Attorney General - and of course the future one for now, is already a QC - but future Attorney Generals will not be able to be appointed Queen's Counsel as a result of an act of this Legislature. So I find that somewhat amusing. Someone could go into the office, take the title of Queen's Counsel and, having received it, bring in a bill here repealing that clause that gives future Attorneys General the Queen's Counsel. I am sure hon. members can follow what I am saying to them. I mean, it is unbelievable.

MR. TOBIN: You'll never get it 'Roger'.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations will not have a chance, once he becomes a future Attorney General, of being a Q.C. I don't know if the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has reflected on where he sits, but I call it now, Loser's Corner. He had better be careful, and ask the Premier to move him somewhere else in the legislature.

MR. FUREY: It is irrelevant.

MR. MATTHEWS: 'It is irrelevant,' says the Minister of Development. There is one thing I must say to the minister, his prediction was wrong, and I am not going to say any more. His prediction, as of 2:00 o'clock today, my colleague for Burin - Placentia West, his prediction was wrong on the new Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: You have been known to be wrong, but you were way off.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: I am not telling you what his prediction was. I keep some things secret.

I would like to ask the President of Treasury Board, the Government House Leader, when he speaks again, could he please try to explain why that particular Clause 1 is being eliminated, repealed from the act for future Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General? To me, it seem somewhat hypocritical, Mr. Speaker, that you would walk into an office and take a title that was provided for you in legislation, if you so desired. Now, there have been former Attorneys General, I might add, that did not take the title of Queen's Counsel. They chose not to. There have been some former Attorneys General who did not take the title of Queen's Counsel, I tell the Minister of Development, and that was their decision.

MR. CARTER: There was only one.

MR. MATTHEWS: Only one?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Fisheries says there was one, so I am going to take his word. I do not take his word about things in the fishery, but when it come to Queen's Counsel, I will take his word that he knows what he is talking about, that there was one. That seems to be somewhat ironic, hypocritical, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: I don't like that Queen's Counsel bit, anyway.

MR. MATTHEWS: You don't like the Queen's Counsel bit.

MR. TOBIN: No, I don't.

MR. MATTHEWS: But there are people who have Queen's Counsel and whom you like.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, but that is because you don't have it. I would say, if you were sworn in today as the new Attorney General for the Province, you would not be long, if you could, in whacking Q.C. behind your name, I say to the Minister of Development. He would not be too long being Mr. Charles Furey, Q.C. if he were sworn in to the office of Attorney General, today. Before it was put to this legislature and that clause repealed, I would say we would be saying, Mr. Charles Furey, Q.C. He would be introduced at cocktail circuits all over the Province. He would be some proud of it, and I would say the Member for St. John's East Extern would be prouder, because he always keeps saying, 'What a fine fellow!' I don't know - it makes me wonder.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Never, never, too unsophisticated, I suppose they would say.

Another thing here that is passing strange, or I think deserves some attention, is that two members of the board shall be selected from a list of seven persons to be submitted by the Law Society of Newfoundland at the request of the Minister of Justice - two members of the board shall be selected from a list of seven, that list of seven to be submitted by the Law Society of Newfoundland at the request of the Minister of Justice. Now, why does not the Minister of Justice have the Law Society submit two names, and these two names would be members of the Board? Why would the minister, the Premier, or whoever, want to select two from a list of seven? It begs a question. Again, in my opinion, we are talking about manipulation, trying to work the system to the advantage of the Government, the minister, or the Premier, so that they can pick, out of the list of seven, someone they feel is suitable to be designated, to be given the title of Queen's Counsel. Let the Law Society do it. These are my observations, Mr. Speaker. As I said, what strikes me most is the repealing of Clause 1 so that future Attorneys General would not, if they so desire, receive the title of Queen's Counsel. Maybe the President of the Council can answer it, and I think my colleague wants to have a few words on it. He is ambitious and wants to become a Queen's Counsel, I believe.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few words on this, as well. I am not all excited about this title, Q.C. I know a lot of lawyers who have the title Q.C., and a lot of lawyers who do not have the title Q.C., and I think those who don't have it are just as good as those who have it. I don't know why the minister is not bringing in an amendment today to cancel - or certainly to set up a Committee of the House to look at, in conjunction with the Law Society, what this title is all about. What does it really mean?

MR. MATTHEWS: Cancel it altogether.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I have difficulties with what is going on here.

MR. MATTHEWS: Would you support cancelling it altogether?

MR. TOBIN: If the member wants to throw it out, Mr. Speaker, he will not have any great objections from me. If the President of Treasury Board is suggesting that we eliminate it, I will not strongly object, I can assure you of that. What I am saying is that I do not know why we have to get in this title of Q.C. I would suspect, Mr. Speaker, that for some reason it is established as sort of an elitist group amongst the lawyers in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I would strongly suspect, that if the Member for Bonavista South, today, had Q.C. behind his name, if it were Aubrey Gover, Q.C., he would not be sworn in as an Acting Minister of Justice, he would have been sworn in as a Minister of Justice. But the fact, Mr. Speaker, that he did not have that title, that the Premier of this Province, himself, has, the fact that he was not one of these lawyers and the fact that he was not up there on that pedestal with the Premier, among the elite of the lawyers in this Province, is the only reason why he is not the Minister of Justice; and the fact that Mr. Ed Roberts has Q.C. behind his name, is the reason why he is being brought in. It is because of the elite status that is set up within the Law Society in this Province.

I remember well a former Liberal member, Mr. Neary, debating this issue several times before. I remember some of the stands and positions put forth by the Liberal Party as it relates to Q.C.s in this Province. What I would like to know is why the former Minister of Justice - it was he who brought in the bill - took the title, and brought in the bill to eliminate it. Now, Mr. Speaker, the poor old Member for Bonavista South may never get to be a Q.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: He may never get to be a minister.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I would suspect that there was a deal down there to make him a full-time minister. But why, in this Province today - is it because the Premier is a Queen's Counsel, because he is one of the elite in the Law Society in this Province?

I would like to know also, about this title of Q.C., Mr. Speaker, For whom is it designated? Is it just for the group of lawyers in St. John's, or does it go outside of St. John's? Does it go to the South Coast, and does it go to Central Newfoundland and the West Coast, and Labrador, or is it just for a group in here?

MR. SIMMS: St. John's lawyers (inaudible). There is a big difference.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference. I am saying to you that the Member for Bonavista South would be a full- time Minister of Justice if he had a Q.C., but because the Premier is such an elitist and such a pompous lawyer in this Province, and thinks he is, thinks he is the best lawyer around because he has the title of Q.C. behind his name, he will only fill the position of Minister of Justice with someone who has the Q.C.. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that is nothing short of looking down upon the people in the Law Society such as the Member for Bonavista South who do not have it. That is the argument I am making.

I have nothing but respect for lawyers in this Province, those with and without Q.C.s. I do not see any difference. God help us and the Province if we did not have these lawyers in the Province. That is what I would say. But I think we are segregating lawyers with Q.C.s and the lack of Q.C.s. Why don't we give it to all the lawyers? I am sure there are reasons for that too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and the Minister of Development agrees with me, I know he does. Like me, he is from the new school. And I am not so sure that the President of Treasury Board does not agree with me. But the biggest problem that I have with this Bill today is that the former Minister of Justice, the Member for Humber West, who took the title of Q.C., because he could take it - and rightly so - but at the same time to bring in a piece of legislation that will eliminate the Member for Bonavista South now taking the title of Q.C..

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the problems I have with this Bill. I have a lot of problems with it, but that is one of the problems I have. Why would a Minister who took the title of Q.C. because he was the Minister, and justifiably so, and had every right to do it, but why is he bringing in this -

MR. MATTHEWS: I'll tell you something else too. He tried to get it for one of his buddies, he is trying to manipulate it to get one of his buddies there who he knows will never get there if he does not do this.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Grand Bank says the former Minister of Justice is trying to manipulate the Q.C. system to get one of his buddies in there.

MR. MATTHEWS: That's right. Who he knows would never get there without this being done.

MR. TOBIN: Maybe that is the case!

MR. MATTHEWS: I know it is!

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that Lynn Verge you're talking about or what?

MR. MATTHEWS: No, she could have had it.

MR. TOBIN: She could have had it as Minister of Justice but did not take it, as I understand it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, she could have exercised her right.

MR. MATTHEWS: There are a number of things she did not do. She did not have a government car either.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, she did not.

MR. MATTHEWS: She did not have a government car either when she was Minister.

MR. TOBIN: The question that I want answered - and I want to emphasize it again, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against the lawyers who are Q.C.s, and nothing against the lawyers who are not Q.C.s. I think they should all be treated fairly. But the problem I have is why did a Minister, and I want to say it again, why did the Minister of Justice, now the Member for Humber West, take the title of Q.C. which he was entitled to under the legislation, and when he was finished taking the title, introduce legislation in this House that denies another Minister, such as the Member for Bonavista South, or the new Minister of Justice, to take the same title? Those are some of the questions that I want answered.

Is it possible in this legislation that a Minister of Justice can manipulate the system so that he or she can have their buddies appointed the Q.C.s of this Province? I do not know, Mr. Speaker, but I am asking the question. Is it possible under this that a Minister of Justice can manipulate the system to have their friends become Q.C.s?

The other question that I would like to have answered, and I have mentioned it earlier, and I do not know -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, one thing for sure, the Member for Port de Grave will never get his Q.C.. He will never get anything. He will never get anything associated with Justice.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, he is going to get Justice.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, he is going to get Justice? He is going to get Justice. Or you might get your Q.C.. Mr. Speaker, if the Q.C.s for lawyers is such a great thing, are all the lawyers throughout the Province - for example, and I do not know the answer to this either. I know there is a -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I will not sit down. But I will ask the former Minister of Justice to stand up and tell us

No, I will not sit down -

MR. SIMMS: Who is the reporter?

AN HON. MEMBER: Brian Jones.

MR. SIMMS: Brian Jones?

MR. TOBIN: I will not sit down, but I will ask the former Minister of Justice to stand up and tell us, why he took the Q.C. title himself and then brought it in. I will ask him to do that and I would also ask him: if the Q.Cs are going to be handed out for no reason, to certain selective lawyers in this Province; is it going to be done for lawyers all around the Province? These are some of the questions that I would like answered.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to - I would call it debate, but that may be giving it too high a level of acclamation, but I have listened to the comments made by the members Opposite, and I think it is quite clear from the comments they have made that it indicates no fault in the bill, but rather in their own character or in their own approach to life.

First of all, the member used terms such as 'elitist and manipulation'; that may speak to their own attitude toward how they would order the affairs of Government to bestow benefits on their friends and that is something obviously that this Government has never done nor would I expect it to do in the future, so any question of manipulation by a Minister of Justice - yes, it is theoretically possible. Would a Liberal Minister of Justice do it? I doubt it very much, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, the member did not suggest that in any of the appointments we had made, that this was done -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) answer the question.

MR. DICKS: - but may I just say on that particular point, that the bill is intended to eliminate any manipulation; because what it does is, it requires the Minister to appoint a commission and board that would review any proposed appointments and if the individuals were not deserving of the honour, they would not pass that committee and therefore would not be accorded the honour of being a Q. C.

I would point out that the question: whether or not the Minister of Justice and Deputy Minister of Justice should be automatically accorded the honour of Q. C., is something that we have reviewed and we do not think it should be the case. History will show that it was brought in by a former Minister. I believe it was the hon. Mr. Ottenheimer, who, at that time did not satisfy the qualification of having served ten years at the bar, and for some unknown reason changed the law so that he automatically then became eligible and of course not automatically took, but certainly chose to take the honour upon himself. So if one would attack it, you would have to attack the origin but not as an origin in this Government, but rather in our predecessor's Government, the hon. now Senator Ottenheimer, having done that you might take that question up with him, but we, at this point in time see no reason to continue that automatically.

The hon. member also used the term 'elitist', Mr. Speaker, and suggests along with that that the whole Q. C. distinction should be one that should be eliminated. There may well be an argument for that and that bespeaks the frame of mind of those who would eliminate the Monarchy, who would eliminate the title 'honourable' from members who sit in this House, and obviously that has a great merit in some people's minds and would as well eliminate those honours such as: The Order of Canada and so forth, and certainly, if one accepts that point of view, then one should be consistent and avoid all titles, and I expect that, that being the hon. member's position, he would not seek to use the term 'honourable' in his own correspondence or if he is seen as such in the eyes of his constituents, probably with all due reason I might add.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it raises a basic point as to whether or not one should have distinctions in society, is it elitist? Yes, to some extent it is; Q.C.s are considered to be members of the profession who served with distinction over a protracted period of time, who have shown by the course of their actions and conducts before the courts that they are deserving of such a distinction.

It has fallen in some cases and in some provinces and in this Province in the past to be a hollow sort of honour and one that perhaps some people did not deserve, but certainly the appointments that we have made speak to the qualifications of the people and on that I see no reason to eliminate it. However, I am sensitive to the hon. member's view and would take it that he would carry it forward and be consistent and eliminate all titles and if that is his position, it is one perhaps the Legislature should consider.

But as long as we, as a society, espouse any type of honours to be bestowed on individuals, then it seems to be no less a case that the legal profession as much as the ordinary members of society who might aspire to the Order of Canada and such distinction should also be eligible for such honour and acclaim. That is the origin of the Q.C.; that is the rationale for its continuance and that being the case, Mr. Speaker, I would commend the bill to the Legislature for approval as nothing the Opposition has raised, would lead anyone to doubt its merits. Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: I have been listening attentively to some of the speakers, especially the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West, and this always intrigued me, this Q.C.. I have had friends over the years and still have friends who are lawyers, some have that Q.C. and some do not. I have known lawyers who have passed away without ever attaining that distinction.

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. If a lawyer is not efficient in employing his trade then shouldn't everyone know about it? Why isn't there some kind of a criteria: like after you are in the profession for five years, then unless there is something great out there, something that big, something mammoth that everyone could see, and that lawyer is tarred with it saying he cannot become a Q.C. because of this impediment, then he is not eligible. But my big fear - and over the years I have seen it - is that a great number of Q.C.'s receive that honour through being political. We have a number of fine lawyers who are not political, who do not have any political ties whatsoever, be it PC, Liberal or NDP. And if this legislation said today that all lawyers who come before the bar and have five, six or ten years service, then they would automatically receive that honour. Why not? I ask the President of Treasury Board? Why not? Why not have some sort of a criteria where a lawyer with ten years unquestionable service - most of them do have unquestionable service - why isn't it automatic? Why do some lawyers go through their whole lives, die and never receive that honour? They are just as good. Are there questionable characters out there who we should know about who are not eligible to receive this honour? Then we should know.

As far as the bill is concerned, the bill is only, I suppose, in some instances house keeping of the ex-Minister of Justice, who I must say before this hon. House I regret to see him leaving because he was a young lawyer, and certainly we need some new -

AN HON. MEMBER: He was a good Minister.

MR. PARSONS: And a good Minister, very much so. I (inaudible) the Minister over the years and the past couple of years here, and there is very little to be desired as it pertained to that Minister. And I thought that that Minister by being youthful and what came across to me as being articulate, that that Minister had a lot to give to this Province, and I am sorry to see him leave. But I say to the Minister and on the Q.C. bit, why isn't there some criteria? If a person can apply his trade, if he is good at it, if there is nothing really against him, why isn't it after ten years that it is just automatic that a person becomes a Q.C. and receives that honour? Most times it is done because of political interference and political pressure. I do not think the hon. gentleman would deny that. I think it is done through politics. What I am saying is that I know of good men who have passed on and have never received that honour. I say that is an injustice, and I think that each and every person out there no matter what his political stripe is should be in the running; he should be eligible to receive that degree.

I look at the hon. Member for Bonavista South and -

AN HON. MEMBER: He is a fine young man.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, he is a fine young man. I have not one single thing to say about that young man. And if he had been a Q.C. today perhaps we would not have heard the Premier's statement when he had to bring in a lawyer from outside. Now I do not think that distinction should be there, as far as being too young and as far as not having the brains, I suppose for better terminology, to do the job. The Premier said that because of the constitutional bit, but the constitutional bit is so far down the ladder now that they cannot get anyone to attend the meetings here or anywhere else, so I cannot see how that is a formidable excuse not to appoint the hon. Member for Bonavista South. But the point I am making is that if that hon. Member for Bonavista South was a Q.C., he would possibly be here as Minister of Justice. I think that is discrimination. I think that there should be overall - every Member of the Bar should be eligible for that honour if his credentials were such. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board, if he speaks now, will close the debate.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some points have been raised by the Opposition, certainly, concerning not only this particular Bill but concerning the legal profession and the way that the legal profession operates.

Now I have to confess to Your Honour that the workings of the Law Society and the legal profession are a mystery to me. I have a number of friends who are lawyers and have been members of the legal profession for a number of years. I have a niece who is now a lawyer, I have a nephew who soon will be, and yet having this contact with the legal community the whole thing is a mystery to me. All I can say is that if this distinction has to be made then it should be available to everybody, which I understand it is. There are certain restrictions. You have to be practising law for ten years I believe, and a few other things like that. But it is something that is open to everybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I am not familiar with the process within the legal society, within the Law Society, so I could not comment on that comment. I do know that if it is political I believe it was the Members opposite when they were in government who gave a Q.C. to a good friend of mine who was Liberal, so I am not so sure it was totally political. But anyway, if that designation has to be made then it should be open to everybody, and I believe it is. With the restriction of - there are some restrictions, one of them being ten years practice. So, Mr. Speaker, it makes it fair for everybody.

Also I would like to point out to Members opposite that it is not uncommon in the Canadian situation that the Attorney General not be a lawyer. So there you would have the anomaly of a person who is not a lawyer still having the title Q.C. if that person served as Minister of Justice. So that does not seem to make a great deal of sense either. I believe that a lot of the trappings and so on we should do away with. We should make the system more fair, I agree with you. I hope that this Bill goes a small way towards doing that.

I will not comment at this particular time on the suggestion by the Member opposite to abolish the Q.C. altogether. Not being a lawyer, that is the way that I would tend to think. But I do not really want to comment on it, but the suggestion has been made that maybe it should be abolished altogether. I believe there are some jurisdictions where it was in and has been abolished. I think that the title has been abolished and perhaps it is something that could be considered in the years ahead. But in the meantime, while it is still there, let's make it as fair as possible.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second reading of this particular Bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow or presently by leave. (Bill No. 21).

MR. BAKER: Order 21, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 21.

MR. TOBIN: Point of order!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we just dealt with, in my opinion, a very important piece of legislation. I am not finished yet, we just dealt with a very important piece of legislation, regarding the legal profession in this Province. Now, the acting Minister of Justice is up there in the backbenches, and I am just wondering for what reason is he not involved in the debate on this piece of legislation? Why is he not down front where we could direct questions to him and have input from him instead of somebody like the President of Treasury Board who like myself does not know a whole lot about Justice.

We could all receive an education if the Minister of Justice was allowed to get involved in this debate, and when is he going to be allowed to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is ready to rule. There is no point of order. Hon. members are free to rise in the House and be recognized by the Speaker and speak whenever they so desire. We have just passed the bill in Second Reading and now we are moving on to Second Reading of another bill. So, there is no point of order.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting The Prevention Of Fire." (Bill No. 53)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, this bill is An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting The Prevention Of Fire in the Province, and deals with several amendments to the bill. Clause 2 would repeal the definition of "council" and add the definition of "municipal authority" and then subsequent amendments to that as well.

Clause 3 is amending subsection 3 (2) of the present Act and adding some subclauses. That would provide that more than one special assistant be appointed to assist the fire commissioner and that special assistants serve without remuneration.

Clause 4 deals with amending section 4 of the present Act, which would add as local assistants to the fire commissioner, the Chief and Deputy Chief of Operations and the Superintendent of Training and Fire Prevention of the St. John's Fire Department.

Clause 6 is an amendment as well, including fire alarms in the requirements for specifications and plans submitted to the fire commissioner.

Clause 8 provides changes that would bring the legislation in line with the current fire prevention practices.

Clause 11 would add a new paragraph, and again this is just bringing some changes, in this particular clause, in line with current practices, as well.

Clause 13 clarifies the orders which the fire commissioner may make.

Clause 18 is amending section 17 of the present Act by allowing a local or special assistant to the fire commissioner as well as the fire commissioner to make certain orders respecting the closure of structures. Subsections, as well, in that Act are repealed and replaced by subclauses 18 (2) and (5) of this bill, and would clarify the circumstances and manner in which a structure may have its occupancy limited by the fire commissioner.

Clause 23 would amend the Act by adding a new section respecting the establishment of a firefighting training program.

Clause 26 again amends the Act respecting the certification of persons engaged in the installation and servicing of fire safety devices.

Clause 27 of this Bill would repeal and replace section 26 of the present Act to clarify and strengthen the ability of the fire commissioner and special or local assistants to monitor and control the use and handling of flammable and other hazardous substances.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we are asking in this bill is that we enact all these various amendments. The Act, dealing with the prevention of fire, has not been substantially changed in some time and we are attempting, with these changes in the Clauses, to bring the Act, the clauses, conditions and the fire prevention up to modern standards and current practices in the Province and, of course, throughout the Country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A few comments on some of the changes: There is nothing really serious, except for the fact that I would like to comment on Clause 6 of the bill, Clause 6 (1) (c), which says, "to provide for adequate fire alarm, fire detection, fire suppression and life safety equipment." I think that is very important, and it is long overdue, as far as I am concerned. We have seen all kinds of cases and incidents around this Province and around this Country, Mr. Speaker, where just an ordinary smoke detector let alone a heat detector would have saved a lot of lives. That particular clause is long overdue. Clause 8 of the bill that would amend subsections 8, 3, and 4, probably the Minister would comment on that? Maybe I am reading it wrong but 8, 3, and 4, especially Clause 4 "Where a fire occurs on an industrial site and where the owner or operator of the industrial site has qualified safety supervisory staff in its employ, the investigation into the cause, origin and circumstances of the fire need not be investigated by a special assistant to the fire commissioner." If a fire started at a place like Come By Chance, maybe I am reading it wrong, but that would exempt them, would the Fire Commissioner's office not be responsible to go in and do an investigation in that particular case, or for instance Kruger in Corner Brook, or some place like that? Maybe the Minister, when he gets up to speak on the bill and close debate, maybe he could comment on that particular section?

There is one other section there, Mr. Speaker. I think it is Clause 23. This would amend the Act by adding a new section. This would be a new section added to this particular bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: The fire fighting training program.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, the fire fighting training program. That has been instituted, if I am not mistaken, it is good to see it there but the only thing about that is it is a bit ironic that you see this particular programme put in place, and still in place because I am fairly familiar with it because of the firehouse that has been established now in Bay of Islands, a very worthwhile project for the whole area, the west coast, central, east, the whole works, everybody is taking advantage of it, and more specifically the volunteer fire brigades on the west coast of the Province. The sad thing about it is the cuts, the cuts that now are taking place in the Commissioner's office. The volunteer fire brigade used to always be able to take advantage of the Fire Commissioner's office in Corner Brook and gain some very valuable training, experience, and expertise when it comes to fighting fires but now the funding for the Fire Commissioner's office in Corner Brook is cut. They cannot go out now and do what they used to do. If I am not mistaken they cannot do it on weekends at all. The Corner Brook office has been cut to the point where they cannot train on weekends. There is very minimal training involved now. I would caution the Minister that while this would be a good programme, and is an excellent programme, they are not going to be able to do what is expected of them unless they have some dollars and funds in place to do just that.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker, maybe the Minister when he closes debate would comment on that Clause 8 (4) in particular and the new Clause 23 and give us an example of what will be happening there in the future with regards to funding at the Fire Commissioner's office pertaining to training for volunteer fire brigades.

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

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

I have really no fault with this piece of legislation. I was under the impression that the fire chief and the first officers with the Fire Department always had consultation with the Fire Commissioner in many areas of fire fighting. The other thing I was looking at was that twenty-three were fire fighting training programmes. I was also under the impression that those training programmes had been ongoing for many years. I know in Gander there was a facility opened, perhaps ten years ago, and was second to none. Mr. Speaker, I do have some experience as being a fire fighter with the City of St. John's and with the Federal Government that on many occasions fire fighters were brought in from outside and given some training within the City. I suppose the reason for that was because of the equipment that was available in the City and also because of the frequency in which the City fire fighters availed

in the use of the equipment and I think it served the purpose, but I say to the Minister that I thought that without this twenty-three, means that there will be additional services set up; again, I thought that these services were already in place; perhaps never used within a bill or never installed within a bill, but perhaps that is what you are doing here, but again, I have no fault with it, but I can see too, where the city fire chief in the major cities and his top lieutenants would be certainly consulted by the Fire Commissioner as it pertains to hazardous materials or hazardous liquids moving through those cities or anything else, because a great number of occasions those people are well trained and can give those services to the Fire Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make a few comments on this particular Bill, No. 53, "An Act to Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting The Prevention Of Fire", and of course I guess, as we are all out and about our different areas in the Province from time to time we run into situations, either by way of being contacted, I guess for the most part, by operators of businesses and so on who run public buildings.

Now there is one thing that I just want to say in my few remarks on this: while we all understand the reason for safety and making sure that buildings are as safe as possible, that proper materials are used on the walls and the ceilings and so on of the various buildings and public buildings, particularly out and about the Province, I found in my own area that there is a degree of inconsistency in the requirements that are placed upon, say one building as opposed to another.

I do not know if any other members have found the same, but I have found that to be so; as I said, not down-playing the need for safety to be uppermost in all our minds, particularly when we are dealing with fires, because we all know what can happen if you get a number of people in a public building and a fire breaks out, if there is not an adequate number of exits or if the materials in the buildings are rather flammable, then we can have a disaster.

But there seems to be a degree of inconsistency out and about the Province, and I do not know if the Minister can re-act to this or not, with buildings that are of a similar type, similar type structure in some cases, about the same size - I mean I know of cases in the same community where buildings are of approximate size, that the number of people allowed inside the building for public functions seem to differ and vary somewhat, and as I said, I think now that the Fire Commissioner's office, when setting the number of people - I look at Clause 18, Section 2: 'the Fire Commissioner can order the number of persons to be permitted in or upon the structure of property shall not exceed that prescribed in the order,' and of course, I am sure we have all walked in to public buildings and we see the notice up saying 105 or 210 people allowed in.

The point is that, on a number of occasions you go into buildings that are about the same size and the number differs. I see the Acting Minister of Justice shaking his head no, but I do not know if he is saying no to me in my speech or if he is talking to his colleague; I thought he was saying no, that what I am saying is incorrect. So, I am just wondering, I think that the number and the number of people permitted in a building as I understand it, is established in consultation with the local fire departments or the local fire brigades I believe; that the fire chief and so on in each community has a look at the building and then they decide upon a number that is permitted in the building. But having said that, there has been a discrepancy in my opinion, in buildings of about the same size where, you know, I am sure we have all run in to it, where someone wants to have a wedding in a hall and you are only allowed to have 150 people, yet in another place, in a building of the same size, somebody can accommodate 250, so there is inconsistency in that and I am wondering if the Minister, could perhaps just - I do not expect him to answer today, but if he could just raise the question with the Fire Commissioner's office maybe, and just ask him on what grounds and guidelines is the number set. As well, I have run into situations where certain operators of public buildings have had to incur large expense in renovating their buildings. Now like I said, I understand why you need materials that are fireproof that offer for the patrons of the buildings the maximum protection and so on, the least chance of catching fire, and if it does catch fire of spreading quickly and so on. But I am just wondering if the Minister could undertake for the House to perhaps some day come back and just give us a message from the Fire Commissioner on how the numbers are established, what the guidelines are for old buildings and public buildings out and about the Province, where inspections are done on buildings that have to be renovated and so on, what guidelines are used to bring those buildings up to par?

Those are the only remarks I have to make on the bill, Mr. Speaker. Having said that there is not too much else we can say about a law respecting the prevention of fire because we are all very interested in that. However, I would say that my colleague for Humber Valley's remarks on the training aspect or the training component is certainly a very important and valid one. I am sure we have all been very close - I know in my area of the Province, in my district, I am very, very close to the fire departments in each community there. The training programs that they have undergone over the years, some very, very good programmes, and very, very dedicated people out and about the Province who are for the most part out ready at the call of the fire whistle to protect the property and life of the citizens of the various towns around the Province.

So it would be very, very sad, as my colleague for Humber Valley said, that as a result of cutbacks in funding to the Fire Commissioner's office we see those training programmes, particularly to the volunteer firemen out and about this Province, see that training in any way curtailed or hampered or down played. I think it would be a real crime for the dollars that are spent on such a worthy programme be curtailed. I would suggest to the Minister that rather than cut back in any way money for that kind of a programme to the Fire Commissioner's office that indeed looking at the - if you had to pay the volunteer firemen out and about this Province, I mean the Province could not afford it. So we are getting a very good service is what I am saying because there is some money provided for training of those volunteer people, and I would encourage the Minister in the upcoming Budget, if there was a cutback in that particular allocation in this years Budget to look very seriously at finding a few extra dollars for that very worthwhile programme.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you. I have just a couple of quick words with regards to the provision of fire detection devises. I just urge the Minister to support an effort to have municipalities make smoke detectors mandatory in all houses throughout the Province. I feel it would be very worthwhile. Smoke detectors now, because of the preponderance of them, are very low in cost, and of course then would come the enforcement, and that could certainly be handled in a manner through education through local volunteer fire brigades doing inspections and getting out to meet the public in offering some fire education. So I would certainly urge the Minister to support this kind of thing as well, albeit I am sure that if it was designated as such then such legislation may be very difficult, but to urge municipalities to put forth mandatory legislation for smoke detectors, I think, for all existing structures as well as newly planned ones as it is noted for in the legislation. I just wanted that on the record, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a few short words also on the bill. Nobody has any real argument with it. I would like to follow up on the comments made by the Member for LaPoile. He certainly has a point, that we should be stressing, at least, the fact that smoke detectors are extremely important. A number of fires that have ended in tragedy did so because smoke detectors were not in the house. We ticket people for having a taillight gone or for not having a seat-belt on, and yet we can let such things as smoke detectors go, and they are a much greater danger to lives than probably a taillight missing. If we cannot go in and ticket people for not having smoke detectors, which is impractical and impossible, a good education program should take place to equate or make people aware of the need for having such devices in the home.

In relation to the bill itself, talking about the prevention of fire, I would just like to mention to the Minister one of the concerns already raised, and that is about the cutback in funding which might lead to a cutback in training. In my own specific area, just a couple of years ago, the local fire brigades in conjunction with different types of make-work programmes constructed a central training facility in Riverhead, St. Mary's Bay. That has been used to train people not only from the whole of my area, but Province-wide. We have had people from all over the Province come there to participate in different training programmes in the facility. A tremendous effort, a lot of volunteer time and energy and money, actually, went into it, along with different make-work programmes, and they have established a very good facility. Something like that should be looked at very positively by the department when extra equipment and so on is needed, and I must say has been to a great degree.

One of the concerns every year when the Minister brings in his money for firefighting, is usually he has to wait until the major packages are approved to see if there is any money left for the smaller things, like breathing apparatus, hose and whatever. Quite often it is the smaller items that cause problems at the local level. If you look at our major firefighting facilities here in St. John's, fully paid for, fully staffed, all the equipment and so on provided, then we look at the same towns and communities spread throughout the Province realizing that they all operate on a volunteer basis, and some of those fire brigades will stand up with anybody in relation to professionalism, how they carry out their work and the amount of time and dedication they put in. Yet, quite often they are hampered by lack of equipment, because it is extremely hard for them to come up with the amount of money they have to pay. Even when they do have their own funding, of course, governments don't have the necessary money in the budget to provide for the needs.

Just recently we had a major fire in Portugal Cove South and two young people are in hospital in fairly serious condition, one of them in extremely serious condition actually. It is amazing that both of them were not burned. We have had tragedies before in the same area, just recently. In this case the fire brigade did get in there and managed to put out the fire after a while. But where the house was located, they just barely had hose enough to reach the house. If the building had been any further away from the source of water they would not have been able to reach it with the amount of equipment they have now. Like other councils and fire brigades, they have a request in for extra hose and extra equipment.

So, I say to the Minister, perhaps it would be something to look at as he is preparing his budget, to stress to his colleagues the need, not only for a certain amount of money in the firefighting component in relation to trucks and major expenses. We cannot take a chance, I do not think, in hoping that there are - and it was always done this way - a few dollars left over to provide hoses or breathing apparatus or whatever. All the different fire brigades get a form letter from the Minister's Office saying, 'your request is on file - one of many hundreds - 'and we have to wait to see how much money is left over before we can address it.' These people, as I say, are ready and willing to put in their own percentage, they are operating on a volunteer basis and we should see that each year at least several of these requests are addressed, and eventually all of them. Because the few hundred feet of hose that any fire brigade has requested might mean the difference between life and death in the next fire, and we would all have to share responsibility, I think, for that. So, hopefully the Minister, as I say, will look for extra funding, and certainly it is something that we all can support.

The rest of the bill, it is good to see that we are zeroing in on the prevention of fire. Sometimes we look upon these things as meaningless bills. Certainly here, if we really stick to the rules and regulations and encourage the use of fire detectors, try to provide extra firefighting equipment throughout the Province where the people, as I say once again, operate on a voluntary basis, then some of the tragedies we have had in the past may not occur again.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. If the Minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is great to see so many members of the House speak on this particular bill. It certainly points out the importance of fire prevention in the Province, and obviously the great interest of Members in the various amendments.

Mr. Speaker, mention was made of the training programme, and in fact this is really just to put it into the act and formalize the fact that we do have an ongoing training programme specifically geared to the volunteer brigades throughout the Province. As one of the hon. Members already mentioned, it is very difficult to deliver fire prevention and fire safety services throughout the Province with such a scattered population and so many small towns and communities, and allocating the equipment and the various larger pieces of equipment, the trucks themselves and the fire fighting packages, is always a difficult chore for the Fire Commissioner. The Fire Commissioner's office, of course, determines each year the allocation of equipment and the fire fighting packages and so on, on a regional basis, and tries to co-ordinate fire fighting amongst the various communities, because we cannot obviously have a fire truck and all the equipment and related support equipment and services in every community in the Province, because as we all know, we have some 700 entities throughout the Province, whether they be cities, towns or smaller communities. So we try to regionalize as best we can, but we do indeed have a lot of volunteer fire fighters, and they are doing just a marvellous job.

Our Fire Commissioner's office travels throughout the Province now and holds training seminars - very well received. They do an excellent job, and the purpose of this amendment in the act is just to firm it up in the act. It was not in there as clearly as it was mentioned before, but now we have formalized the fact that we do have an ongoing training programme that we will continue to improve upon as time goes on, Mr. Speaker. But I think everybody would agree that they are doing an excellent job and spend in fact a lot of their time, all of their time, on the road training in the various regions of the Province. We will, in fact, with budget restrictions as they are, try not to have-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: As has been mentioned by a couple of Members, we will try not to have our training programme impeded in any way by way of cutbacks in budget. In fact this year, even though we identified a cutback in the budget, we were able to carry out the training programmes without any loss of time or of effort as far as our training is concerned, particularly with the volunteer units. A question was raised concerning the industrial sites. The intent here is that if we have a qualified safety supervisor in the employ of the company in question that it may not be necessary, if in fact that person is qualified, to have an investigation done by our staff from the Fire Commissioner's office, because if they are as well qualified, or are deemed to be qualified to carry out the investigation, the intent here is, rather than duplicate the cost, or rather than add cost, I should say, by way of travelling to the particular site, that the investigation could be carried out by the person identified as being qualified on the staff of that particular industry. We always leave it open, of course, that if we feel there are certain circumstances, as it says in the Bill, where there is a suspicion of a problem that may cause the Fire Commissioner to send one of the staff from the Fire Commissioner's office in, then we, of course, reserve that right even though we would identify the person in the employ of the industry in question in most cases as qualified.

Mr. Speaker, the Fire Chiefs throughout the Province, both in the paid departments and the volunteer departments, as we know they are mostly volunteer as we only have two or three volunteer areas where we have paid departments, the rest are volunteer in essence, and we have a couple that are a combination of paid and volunteer, but in all cases the Fire Chiefs do in fact consult with the Fire Commissioner. Fire Commissioners are constantly dialoguing with the Fire Chiefs making sure that they are provided with whatever advice is necessary to carry out proper fire prevention.

The question concerning the building was a good one. Whether or not numbers of people identified to be accommodated in a particular building varies from location to location and building to building. Even though the size of the buildings may be similar we do in fact have different regulations. I will get considerable detail as has been suggested for the House and report back on that. But just to give you some idea today, the kind of structure, the number of fire escapes, and the equipment that is in place, and extinguishers, and the proximity of fire hydrants and fire stations all play a factor in determining the capacity of people in a particular building. Mr. Speaker, I will report back to the House in more detail on that particular point, because I was asked by one of the hon. Members to provide some detail.

I think those were the main items raised, Mr. Speaker. The intent of the bill, as I said earlier, is to simply consolidate the various parts of the bill, to modernize it and bring it up to date with current fire fighting practices in the Province and of course throughout the Country, because the standards of fire protection are pretty well the same throughout the various provinces. The intent of this is to bring our particular act up to date, and these amendments will do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting The Prevention Of Fire", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 53).

MR. BAKER: Committee stage on Bill No. 20 by leave.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Repeal The Unimproved Lands (Redistribution) Act." (Bill No. 20).

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 21.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel Act." (Bill No. 21).

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

MR. BAKER: Bill number 35, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 35.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to inform Members opposite that the suggestion was made that we have a look at some other method of providing for that pay, and tying that pay to something. I would just like to reiterate my position now, that I will look at that and report back to the House, and if necessary - because this is the prescription by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council - we will get something done to indicate that we would indeed follow a suggestion made by Members opposite. So I want to have a look at that, yes, and see if it is possible to tie it to some yardstick within the public service.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Status Of Women Advisory Council Act." (Bill No. 35).

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

A bill, " An Act To Establish The St. John's Centennial Foundation." (Bill No. 41)

A bill, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting The Prevention Of Fire." (Bill No. 53)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed Bills 41 and 53 without amendment, carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bills Nos. 20, 21, 35, 41, and 53 without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a couple of points. First of all, tomorrow is Private Member's Day. There was an announcement made and there was an agreement that the Member for St. John's East would have his Private Member's bill debated this Wednesday, however, the Committee he sits on is travelling and he will not be here, so that necessitated a change today. The only Private Member's resolution that was on the Order Paper on Friday when the House adjourned was a resolution from, I believe, the Member for Torngat. He also is unavailable, so the Private Member's resolution that we will debate tomorrow will be the one by the Member for Port de Grave, the one that was read out today. That is the first announcement.

The second one, Mr. Speaker, is that I intend to call Bill No. 22, the new Land's Act on Thursday and hopefully do that one. We have also mentioned that at a certain point in time there is another Supplementary Supply bill that has to be done, so depending on what happens to Bill 22 - I hesitate to go beyond announcing Bill 22. I think that is as far as I can announce ahead of time at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker, these are the plans. I do not know if the Opposition House Leader has any comments.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have too much to say to the Government House Leader except to thank him for giving notice of what he intends to do, not as much tomorrow, as Thursday. Some of our members have mentioned that because of the motherhood issue the Member for Port de Grave has put forward in the resolution - I am just wondering if we could perhaps allow members to all agree on ten-minute speaking time, that the member introducing the motion speak for twenty and to close at the end, but for everyone else to have ten minutes? I am thinking that a lot of members might want to speak to the issue; perhaps they don't, but I know, on our side there will be a considerable number.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, that is a good idea. I would hesitate to limit the Member for Port de Grave to ten minutes, but we could have an agreement for all other speakers to have ten minutes each. I think it would give more hon. members a chance to express their opinions about this very important issue, so we will shorten the time. We will say ten minutes but if a member wants a bit extra, fine.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some might want five.

MR. BAKER: We will plan on ten, but if some people want more we will see.

I move that the House at its rising do adjourn until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow and that the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday at 2:00 p.m.