The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I would like to acknowledge the passing of a very well-known and highly respected health care provider and well-known member of the medical community, Dr. John Ross. Dr. Ross passed away on Friday and his funeral is being held this afternoon.

Dr. John Ross was a physician who practiced in several rural areas of our Province - Bonne Bay, Port aux Basques and Placentia. He was a primary care physician, very thorough and most professional. He was an excellent role model - not only to physicians but to all health care professionals. He always put himself at the disposal of others. He was also a great friend of the many nurses with whom he worked over the years. Up to the time of his illness, he taught and provided clinical practice for our new nurse practitioners in the Nurse Practitioner Program.

Dr. Ross was a great teacher and a great mentor, having spent many years at Memorial University's Medical School and in the Family Practice Unit. He was also a recipient of the Order of Canada. Rex Murphy recently described Dr. Ross as “a gift to his profession”. He will be missed.

Dr. Ross will be remembered for his work in the establishment of the first Community Health Center in our city - on Shea Heights. He was also involved in the Peace Movement. He had several experiences working in Africa and was well-known around the world.

Dr. Ross never retired, as his illness came only a few weeks ago and a cure was not to be.

We extend our sincere sympathy to Mrs. Ross, his daughter and his two sons, at this very difficult time, as we acknowledge this great loss and remember the immense contribution that Dr. Ross made to the health and well-being of the people of our Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, on this side of the House would like to join with the minister in acknowledging the contributions of a person who has made a great contribution to our Province not only in the field of the practice of medicine but, as the minister alluded to, as a teacher, an instructor, and being innovative in bringing a Community Health Center here - the first in the Province. We, too, offer our sincere condolences to the family during this difficult time.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to join with the Minister of Health and the Opposition House Leader in paying tribute to Dr. John Ross, whose contribution to this Province is well respected, particularly in his work in providing the leadership that has, I think, been responsible in many ways for the terrific reputation of the Family Practice Unit at the Memorial University School of Medicine, and also the work in establishing the clinic on Shea Heights, where I worked in the early 1970s. The importance of that clinic to the community is very well-known and highly regarded, and certainly his work as well in international work on governmental organizations and the peace movement made him very well-known and very well respected in the Province. We join in expressing our condolences to the family and the community.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with regret that I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Leslie Russell Thoms, the Province's High Sheriff and the former MHA for Grand Bank, who passed away December 5 at the age of sixty-one.

Mr. Thoms, or Les, as people knew him, served the public of Newfoundland and Labrador with distinction throughout his career.

Born in Garnish on March 7, 1938, Mr. Thoms taught at St. Chad's in Bonavista Bay in 1953-1954 and Gander Collegiate in 1956-1957. He then returned to university and graduated from Memorial with a B.A. and B.A. (Ed) in 1962 and Dalhousie Law School in 1965.

After graduation from Dalhousie, Mr. Thoms practiced law in St. John's, becoming the senior partner in the law firm of Thoms, Fowler, Rowe and Barry.

In 1979. he ran for the House of Assembly and was elected as the Liberal Member for Grand Bank where he served as Justice critic. He was also on several committees, including the House of Assembly's Select Committee for the Adoption of a New Provincial Flag and the Select Committee on Resource Development.

In 1982, he returned to private practice until 1984 when he joined the Department of Justice as a Senior Solicitor.

On March 22, 1988, he was appointed High Sheriff of Newfoundland, an office that is responsible for implementing orders and judgements of the Supreme Court, processing the execution of judgements, assisting the court in service of process and administration of jury duty. The office has, more recently, assumed a responsibility for court security; which, I might add, was an initiative of Mr. Thoms.

Mr. Thoms was an active member of the community. He is a former Director of the John Howard Society and was a member of Memorial University's Board of Regents. He is also a former President of the Newfoundland Branch of the Canadian Red Cross. More recently, he was active with both the Celtic Minor and Junior Hockey Association.

Mr. Thoms spent most of his working life involved in serving the public of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a lawyer in private practice, as an elected official, and as a government solicitor and High Sheriff, Mr. Thoms dedicated himself to the administration of Justice in this Province. He will be missed by all in the department and his memory will serve as an excellent example for his successor.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask all Members of the House to join with the government and the Department of Justice in expressing sincere condolences to Mr. Thoms' wife, Andree, and his four children, Michelle, Stefan, Marc and Eric.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, on this side of the House, join with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General in expressing, certainly, our sympathy and condolences to the family of the late Les Thoms. As a member of the Law Society, I obviously knew Mr. Thoms and had the occasion to work with him from time to time during his role as a High Sheriff.

On behalf of the members of this side of the House, we certainly extend our condolences to his wife Andree and children, Michelle, Stefan, Marc and Eric.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make this statement this afternoon, first of all as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

Ten years ago today, fourteen young women in Montreal were murdered because they were women. This tragic event occurred at Montreal's École Polytechnique when a young man

entered the school, separated men from women, and opened fire on the women because, he said, he believed they were feminists. This terrible tragedy traumatized this country.

Since then, each December 6 Canadians have stopped to reflect on the tragic loss of the lives of these fourteen young women and to consider what actions might be taken to end violence against women. I wish I could say that this senseless act was an isolated event. Sadly, that is not the case.

Violence against women in Canada did not begin with the Montreal massacre and it did not end there either. Thousands of women and children across this country have been victims of violence in the years since that tragedy. Today too many women in Newfoundland and Labrador, like others across the country, continue to live in the shadow of violence and abuse.

Violence against women occurs all too frequently. It continues to have tragic consequences for women's lives and significant social and economic costs.

What can we do about this? One thing we must do is to become more aware of this issue. We must get involved in organizing or supporting anti-violence campaigns and initiatives. We must acknowledge other forms of family and societal violence. Violence affects us all. We all have a responsibility to address it.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has long recognized the importance of playing a leadership role in working to address issues of violence in Newfoundland and Labrador. Nearly five years ago government announced that it would be working with community based groups to implement an action plan for violence prevention in this Province.

Under the auspices of this Provincial Strategy Against Violence we have conducted research, produced publications, and undertaken training programs all aimed at violence prevention and at improving services. We are now exploring how this important work can continue to be carried out.

This government is committed to ensuring that our communities are safe and to addressing the inequalities that enable women to become targets of violent crime.

Let us take a moment to remember the fourteen young women who were murdered in Montreal ten years ago and the thirteen other people wounded during that event. Let us remember, too, the women in Newfoundland and Labrador who have also been murdered and wounded. Let us remember their loved ones, and let us consider what we might all do to try and prevent such senseless tragedy in the future.

I have asked the Page to pass out to all of us the rose button which we all use to commemorate this day and to remember the victims and call for action to change.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The right of those families and those young women to celebrate another festive season or to live another day was abruptly and violently snatched from them. Today, as we have on the anniversary of their deaths for the past ten years, we remember and pay tribute to them because the circumstances surrounding their deaths are so profound we are jolted, and each year we relive the horror. We will never forget but, as the minister said, violence against women in Canada did not begin with the Montreal massacre and it did not end there either.

As we remember these fourteen young women, let us keep uppermost in our minds that violence continues to be a major part of the lives of many of the women among us, and because in many cases they suffer in silence and shame we are not aware of their plight. When their story is brought to light, when it is made public, it does not always receive the attention of a mass murder because it does not appear to be as profound, but the suffering of the women who live in violence is profound. They are our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, our step-daughters, our aunts, nieces, et cetera.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is indeed a dark day in our country's history, when we remember what happened on December 6 in Montreal. I knew one of the young women who was in the class when this took place, and the effect it had on her and her family in the couple of years that proceeded that. Unfortunately, I had the occasion to attend her funeral some five years later when she was killed in the mining industry.

I think it is important, because it is all too common these days to read the paper or hear the news about violent crimes being committed against women simply because of the fact they are women, not for any other reason. I think it is important to support the groups in our country and in our communities, the advocacy groups who are fighting to put a stop to this. It is, Mr. Speaker, important for us to remember this date, but after we remember, it is equally important that we continue to work to wipe out violence in our society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to say that the violence that too often takes hold of our community begins in one form or another, or is nurtured in one form or another, in our own homes.

My call today, in joining with my colleagues who have already spoken, is to call upon each of us, not just in this House but beyond this House, in this Province, to take up our role and our responsibility as parents, as guardians, and as members of the community, to ensure that there truly is dialogue where we live about violence, about the way in which it manifests itself, and about the kind of materials available to our children, the kind of things that shape their view of how to resolve conflicts in this society.

I join with all of those who have again expressed their condolences - again, ten years later - to the families of those young women who died in Montreal.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I speak now as Minister of Human Resources and Employment. I am very pleased to share with members today the latest labour force statistics for Newfoundland and Labrador. These numbers were released this past Friday by Statistics Canada, and are very encouraging for this Province.

Last month, Newfoundland and Labrador set a new record for a monthly employment rate. For the month of November, the number of people employed in the Province rose to 210,500. This is the highest employment rate for the month of November in the Province's history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Our employment rate reached an impressive high thanks to the addition of 8,000 new jobs since November of 1998. More importantly, these new jobs were almost all in full-time employment.

The labour force survey also showed other impressive gains in our provincial labour market. Since this time last year, our unemployment rate dropped by 2.1 percentage points. This bring the Province's unemployment rate to 14.6 per cent, the largest decline of any province and the lowest rate for this Province since the early 1990s.

It is important to mention that these latest gains have come from a variety of areas. Employment growth for the month of November was widespread. It covered all four labour force regions in the Province. In addition, gains were made by important members of our labour force, such as youth, who saw the unemployment rate for youth decrease in the order of approximately 4.6 percentage points.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador believe these numbers reflect a positive trend of economic growth in our Province; however, while we certainly want to recognize the strides we have made, we also understand that we must continue to work together to ensure that this momentum continues.

Recognizing our accomplishments helps to strengthen confidence in our Province's future and fosters a renewed optimism in our economy.

In the first eleven months of 1999 some 10,300 new jobs have been created, bringing the total number of new jobs added to the economy in just thirty-five months to 18,500, a gain of nearly 10 per cent. These numbers are concrete evidence that employment is continuing to grow in this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are only too delighted to see tremendous growth in jobs and employment in our Province and we hope there will be greater growth in the future. You have to look at statistics. You have to look at it and analyze statistics on the basic types of jobs: if they are casual, and whether they are minimum wage jobs. You have to remember also that in our Province we have been victims of a decimation of an Employment Insurance program that has driven people out of our Province and has driven people out of the workforce. They no longer become a statistic, and do not figure in the negative percentages that were evident before.

Out-migration has not stopped in our Province, I might add. It is just as strong this year as it was last year. Thank God, there are a few more people who came back at the short effects.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Out-migration numbers are the same. The net out-migration, I might say to the minister. The minister stood in this House a year and a half year ago and told about all the growth in the fishing industry in the spring of the year. We said: Because the crab season opened early. Wait for August, I said, when the crab is processed, and the next years. Figures go up and down in line with employment growths, productivity in the fishing industry, a delay of winter coming in, a longer construction season. They shift. There are shifting amounts here, from one month to another and from various points, statistics can tell you different things, I say, Mr. Speaker. The bottom line is the people on the Northern Peninsula do not think there is greater employment. The people in Trepassey do not think it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and the people in rural Newfoundland today do not think there is greater employment in our Province because there is not, Mr. Speaker..

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before members opposite get too excited about their version of the good news, they should recognize that the decrease in unemployment in Newfoundland of 11 per cent year over year from 1998 to 1999 was matched by a 14 per cent decrease in Canada wide. We are not keeping pace with the rest of the country in the creation of jobs, despite the numbers. If there were 10,000 new jobs created in the last nine months, how come there are only 4,000 more people employed than there were this time last year? Obviously, while some jobs are coming on there are other jobs being replaced. The trend is that the decent paying full-time jobs in the construction and manufacturing sector are going down and the number of part-time, low-paying jobs in the service sector is going up -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - 70 per cent of which are occupied by women, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Premier, I am glad you are back, because last week he answered nothing and it will give me the opportunity this week to ask you directly, sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would agree with the Leader of the Opposition if the Minister of Mines and Energy had actually said something here today. It is time that he told the people of this Province how much of this ore Inco intends to ship outside of the Province before it starts processing. When we hear him answering questions like that, we might know something about what is going on.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

Members will recall that a resolution to amend Term 1 of the Terms of Union to reflect the new name of the Province was passed on April 29 of this year, and it was unanimously adopted in this House. The federal government is moving at the request of this Province to introduce that resolution for confirmation by the House of Commons and by the Senate. This is absolutely nothing new. Indeed, the request is eight months old and it is certainly not a provocation by anyone.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Quebec have developed a good working relationship over the last several years, specifically in relation to the Labrador Hydro Project.

We have kept the Government of Quebec apprised of the status of the name change request. In fact, I spoke again this morning to Premier Bouchard to question him regarding the headlines in several of the national newspapers. Mr. Bouchard has assured me, and I sought such assurance, that it is not Quebec's intention to commence any kind of legal action against anyone regarding the proposed name change.

It is not in anyone's interest to attempt to create a situation or a conflict that does not exist.

Both provinces have recognized the existing borders in recent agreements. Specifically, I signed on behalf of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I signed with that title, a Labour Market Mobility Agreement with the Government of Quebec, which was signed by Premier Bouchard on April 24, 1998. I repeat: both the Premier of Quebec and the Premier of this Province signed a formal document, an agreement, in which the name of this Province was entitled the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, on April 24.

I have spoken with federal officials and I have been assured again today that this Province's request to enact the name change will proceed in an expeditious manner.

The resolution passed by the House of Assembly and now being considered by the federal government would simply legalize what has been the boundary of this Province as confirmed by the British Privy Council decision of 1927 and give an appropriate legal name to this Province.

To conclude, Labrador has been an integral part of this Province all throughout our history. It is only right and proper that the contribution of this region of our Province be acknowledged in our official name. This is not a matter of dispute in this House nor, to the best of my knowledge, is it a matter of dispute within the federal government or certainly within the Government of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable when matters which are designed to provoke nobody but simply to fulfil the aspirations of this Province become controversial, but I am satisfied, having spoken directly with Premier Bouchard this morning, that no action is being contemplated, is being taken, or will be taken by the Government of Quebec that would challenge the name or the boundaries of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am pleased to hear the Premier has taken the initiative this morning, according to his statement, to correct and clarify this for the record in the House and thus for the Province. I would also like, at some point, to hear publicly what Mr. Bouchard has to say about it as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly pleased that the Premier has taken the opportunity to put on the record his comments and his private discussions with the Premier of Quebec. We also would like to put on the record - I think it needs to be said - that the debates in this House over the issue of the change of name from the Province of Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador were not marked in any way by any sentiments regarding the place of Quebec in Confederation or the Province of Quebec, not intended nor should be taken as anything other than the people of this Province choosing a name that reflects our heritage and the reality of this Province and our history. It is important that that point be said for the record here.

I, too, hope that Premier Bouchard will himself go on the record publicly and tell the people of Canada and of Quebec what he has told the Premier privately, and I hope that will happen very quickly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Obviously, my questions today are for the Premier. They concern Inco and the pending talks that have been ongoing with the Province.

When Inco first proposed development of the mine at Voisey's Bay, we agreed with government on the conditions Inco would have to meet. There were four, as I remember. These are: a long-term mining operation of twenty-five years or more - certainly statements by both the Province and Inco reflect that was the case; mining ore from both the ovoid and the underground ore blended, and that take place concurrently - certainly statements, historic and contemporary statements in the last year to twelve months, certainly will reflect that; complete processing in the Province of all the concentrate from Voisey's Bay to a nickel metal; and, in terms of the technology used, that we would be open to the use of any new technology that may come forward or be brought forward as long as it met the other three conditions.

I would like to ask the Premier - that is our position today, still - is it still government's position? Is that is what is forming the basis of any tentative agreement with respect to Inco and the ultimate development of Voisey's Bay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe again the Leader of the Opposition might be a little bit confused, or does not understand that the government speaks with a single voice on these issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate and recognize the value of recognition in the public as being the subject of a cartoon in a local paper and so on. It shows, I guess, the old adage, there is no such thing as bad publically.

Regarding this issue, I think if there is any attempt at confusion in the Province, it is maybe because the Opposition continues to try to press - and it is a serious issue - for information that does not exist in terms of a proposal from Inco that we do not have, formal negotiations that are not occurring. Maybe again it is a concept that some people do not understand or do not like or really would not engage in if they were the government. We have engaged in it to try and find if there is some way to have a project that provides full and fair benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador and guarantees full processing to nickel metal in Newfoundland and Labrador with the best available technology that we consider; because that is Inco and the mining sector that decides those issues, not necessarily the government of the day.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: It has become apparent that the real reason the minister traveled to Toronto the weekend was to brush up on some stickhandling skills, because that is all that seems to be going on.

I will ask the Premier the question again. The basis for an agreement with Inco was the position that we adopted; it was the government's position. There were four conditions: a long-term mining operation of twenty-five years or more; mining from both the ovoid and from underground, blended concurrently; complete processing in this Province of all the concentrate from Voisey's Bay to a finished nickel project; and, the technology used in processing, that we would be open to any use of new technology as long as it met the former three conditions. Is that still your government's position, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, in the information that we have been discussing in the last week or ten days - which some people try to suggest is no information, but in the information that we been discussing - just as we have been having informal discussions with Inco, there has been nothing, absolutely nothing, said in any forum in Newfoundland and Labrador that suggests there is anything changed in the government's position. Mr. Speaker, we are hoping to get to a point where we can have a formal negotiation.

The issues that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition are all issues - I just want to make sure we understand the context - they were all issues that were raised before the Environmental Assessment Review Panel. Our understanding, as the government, who are still hoping to receive a formal proposal from Inco so that we can have formal negotiations and maybe even do this deal - these issues - our understanding is that Inco has publicly stated that they agree with the recommendations of the Environmental Assessment Review Panel. They agree with the recommendations which include a long-life project, twenty-five to thirty years. They include underground mining along with open-pit mining, and they include the idea that there should be full processing in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, those recommendations are in the Environmental Assessment Review Panel, and we understand that the government has shown a willingness to accept those recommendations. The Aboriginal communities of Labrador have indicated that they agree with those recommendations, and that Inco -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.

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

This is Inco's stated objective, as a company, in line with being the lowest cost nickel producer in the world. My question to the Premier is this: How does that statement - and obviously through your informal discussions the weekend, through your informal opportunity to meet informally with Inco officials to talk about informally full processing, less jobs, et cetera, et cetera -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would expect that we can understand from the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition that, if they were the government, they would be fully concerned about what Inco would like to accomplish; and that would maybe be their number one priority. For us, we are in informal negotiations, trying to make sure that they fully understand what is necessary and vital and absolute for Newfoundland and Labrador, not for Inco.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

We will have a deal that is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador. We understand that Inco has concerns. They have things they would like to accomplish. We will accomplish a deal that is in the best interest, full and fair benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Mines and Energy did a complete flip-flop. He said in the House that there would be no necessity for debate under questioning in this Legislature if it were not open. That they could, in a sense, issue a mining lease and talk about it publicly afterwards. This is in complete contravention to what he said last May, that if a deal is reached he fully expects it to be debated in this Legislature and in the public. So I would like to ask the Premier this question. If there is an agreement reached with Inco, will you make a commitment today that this House will have the opportunity to fully debate it, all aspects of it, before it is final and binding upon the people of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate again an opportunity to return to one of the themes of last week. It is important to return to one of the themes of last week, which is: words are important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the issue is this. The Leader of the Opposition rose at one point last week when his first tactic last week - and this is the context piece - was to say: Tell us what is in that deal that we figure you already have done. He tried that for a couple of days.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to now conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Then he moved to the approach - just asked the question exactly as he asked it to the Premier today - and said: If you have a deal, before it is signed - now, here is the key piece -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: - will there be a guarantee that it will be debated in the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer very quickly in a sentence or two.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The answer I gave was that I would give a guaranteed commitment that there would be a full debate in the Legislature before it was signed - whatever the “it” was, whether that was a MOU, a statement of principles, final contract language -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The answer was no then, and it is no today.

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

I would like to ask the Premier this again. This is extremely important. All we are asking for is that before a deal is final and binding upon the people of the Province that this Legislature have the opportunity to debate it fully. We are not going to hold it up, we will do it in a constructive manner, in a definitive period of time. Will you provide the opportunity for each and every member in this Legislature to fully debate, fully discuss, what any agreement is with Inco? Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We fully understand again that the Leader of the Opposition has a completely contrary view to the greatest publicly known and acknowledged Progressive Conservative of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. John Crosbie, who states without any kind of categorization at all, that because of the fact - his point is this. He is a well known lawyer. He has had success as a political leader with the Progressive Conservative Party in this Province and in the country as a Minister of Justice and Attorney General. His suggestion is that it is foolhardy to suggest that there has to be a debate about this issue in the Legislature, because there is no vote required in this House. There is no piece of law or legislation that this particular Assembly has to approve.

What I have said by way of clarification is that if any component - and if we are lucky enough at some point in time to have an arrangement - requires the change of a law in the House or the creation of a new law, then obviously it has to occur in this Legislature. I did answer last spring that we fully expect -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. It seems likely, probably inevitable now, that Air Canada will indeed take over Canadian and thus have a monopoly in this Province. We don't need to talk at length about how critical that issue is to this very Province. That will mean, in fact, two monopolies to this Province: one for marine services, and now Air Canada.

My first question to the minister is: What is this government's position and what has he conveyed to Mr. Collenette?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the talks were going on between Air Canada and the Onex Corporation I had the opportunity to meet with the federal minister in Saint John at the time at a minsters' conference. I passed along our concerns on behalf of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador at that time, and we had a commitment - especi ly as it pertains to a monopoly and what would happen to rural Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada and so on - at that time that if any merger took place they would certainly look into what they called competition, employees' benefits and rights, the service to rural Newfoundland, and so on. There were five things. Domestic control was another one. The federal minister promised at that time that they would certainly take this into consideration if that merger had to take place.

That merger did not take place. As of today, there is another offer made by Air Canada to buy out Canadian, with approximately $92 million. My understanding, as of this morning, is that the Board of Directors has recommended approval. There is no vote, as of now, but I did take it upon myself last week, after the reports from what happened to InterCanadian employees and so on - the scheduling into this Province last week - to write the federal minister again. One of the points I outlined was the Stephenville situation with regards to a last carrier out of this Province.

The other situation I had was with regards to the employees and their rights with regards to being notified. The people, the clients and the passengers were not notified. It was unbelievable what this company did, it was shameful. They treated their employees with lack of respect and everything else. That was passed along to the federal minister. There were other concerns as well, some of them that I mentioned earlier.

I also took it upon myself to write the Canadian Transportation Agency, because when it comes to a second-last or last carrier to this Province or anywhere in this country, they must give sixty days' notice. They did not do that. Under section 64 and 65 of the act, the Canadian Transportation Agency could have acted. I wrote them on Thursday. They had seven days. They must give a carrier seven days. The carrier must give the Canadian Transportation Agency sixty days, but this morning -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. WOODFORD: This morning, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Transportation Agency replied to me and said that they are giving InterCanadian until 6:30 this evening, to respond. Now, under the rules they must give them thirty days after that to respond. InterCanadian has ten days to respond to my complaint as a minister. They are breaching all the rules and as of 6:30 p.m., if InterCanadian do not respond, the Canadian Transportation Agency will take action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: I am glad to hear that, Mr. Speaker, and what type of action is what we will be listening for closely.

We saw that this summer this government went around the Province with Marine Atlantic, because of the critical issue that it was. It did involve many people across this Province, and we have commended the government for doing that. Now we are talking about the other mode of transportation which is our air transportation. So that it would give people across the Province - employees, the people who know the industry - the information that we need in order to lobby the government to make sure that our message is driven home about how critical the air transportation and marine transportation is to this Province so that we could include all those people.

I would like to ask the minister: Is there any consideration for having that type of consultation process on this issue?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, until we see what is going to happen with this Air Canada offer, and until we see what is going to happen with regards to InterCanadian, I do not think there is any need of that today. The people who are affected directly here today - some of them are sitting in the gallery - are the people and employees of InterCanadian. The other subject that we have with regards to the merger is something we are just going to have to wait and see what happens with. The federal government has it in its power, for all legislative and regulatory authority, to do whatever they wish, including limiting competition, including looking into competition.

To elaborate a little further on the Canadian Transportation Agency, they have it within their power to lift the license of InterCanadian . They also have it in their power to bring in financial sanctions against InterCanadian, and they can also take legal action. Let's wait and see what happens after tomorrow, see what happens to InterCanadian, because the CTA can act on this and they can be very severe when it comes to what InterCanadian are doing in this Province and elsewhere.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If it does, indeed, happen - which all points lead to that - it will have a drastic impact on the revenues for the local authorities in this Province now. Do you have any plans to secure help for those authorities so that they remain operating in this Province?

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

I talked to Roy Locke last week, the machinist union here. I'm meeting with him, some of his staff, clients and employees after the House closes this evening on some other concerns they have. Anything that I can do, as a minister, to intercede on their behalf with the minister in Ottawa, whether it is InterCanadian, Canadian, Air Canada or anywhere else, Mr. Speaker, I will do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Today my questions are for the Minister of Justice. Last year you budgeted $2 million and spent nearly $8 million on legal fees for private practice law firms. This year you budgeted $3 million. Are you going to be three or four times over budget this year?

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

MR. DICKS: Not as far as I know, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I ask the minister why fee payments to private lawyers so much over budget last year and again this year.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government does several things. We budget a certain amount for what is anticipated. For example, we have ordinary criminal proceedings, family proceedings at times, and various sorts of things. Rather than hire solicitors, it is cheaper for us to engage private members of the bar. In recent years we have had major projects and most the overruns were due to legal fees on projects that the hon. member would know of: the offshore projects, some of the resource projects and so on. As of yet, I do not have a firm figure on it but it may be somewhat more, but we consider them investments in the nature of making sure that the Province is well represented and our legal interests protected.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Will the minister name the law firms retained by government and the amount paid to each of them during the 1998-1999 fiscal year and the current fiscal year? If you do not have the information you could table it, I would say to the minister. Will the minister undertake to report to the House every quarter, naming the law firms hired by government and the fees paid to them?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will provide the hon. member with the information. Most of the law firms in the Province, at one point or another, do work on behalf of government, depending on the files. What we find, actually, it is often hard to find various sorts of lawyers to do individual work for us. I would say that, at any time, most of the major firms in the Province are engaged in work for the Province in one way or another. I will get the information filed in due course.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. It has to do with the takeover bid of FPI by the NEOS group, which requires the consent of this government by lifting the 15 per cent share restriction on FPI.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has been silent on this issue to date in terms of response to the many communities in this Province who have considered this issue. As communities and as workforces in the FPI communities and plants have sent a resounding message that they do not favour and do not support this bid, will the Premier end the uncertainty and, in fact, quell the anger that is developing in these communities because the government is not listening to them, and announce that it will not facilitate the NEOS bid by lifting the 15 per cent restriction?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, myself and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture are going to go turr hunting some time soon and we will sort all of this out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the Premier and the minister have said to date is that we have no plans to change the 15 per cent rule. That is like the Premier saying on a Friday that he has no plans to call an election, and then calling the election on Monday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Will the Premier confirm that, in fact, it will not facilitate the NEOS bid by reducing or eliminating the 15 per cent restriction on FPI shares?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

If we were to assume - I guess this is the position of the Leader of the NDP - that the NEOS bid were to fail, were to be rejected by the shareholders of FPI and somebody else were to bid, I presume it is the position of the Leader of the NDP that we should lift the 15 per cent lid for somebody else.

The difference between this government and the Leader of the NDP is that we do not care who makes the request. Unless and until we are convinced it is in the best interest of the Province, we have no plans to introduce any legislation, irrespective of where the request might come from - including from FPI.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Education.

Minister, a report on compensation for land and other property expropriated for churches as a part of school reorganization has been in your hands now for months. Have you decided what you are going to do with it?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we have had considerable discussion with the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association about the agreement that they reached with the RC Episcopal Corporation. There were some concerns, because obviously we have a responsibility as a government to ensure that any money that is being spent on redevelopments or on the building of new schools is that it is being spent effectively and wisely.

Where we are at this stage of the agreement is that the Department of Justice has had a look at it, our lawyer there, and the lawyer for the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association has had a look at it, and there are still some minor concerns there that we are both working on very aggressively to try and iron out; but, having said that, things are still proceeding in the redevelopment stages with the various schools because, of course, boards can always enter into side agreements with the churches.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne. There is time for one final supplementary.

MR. HEDDERSON: Minister, how much is this going to cost, and will the money come from the savings from the restructuring and its failure to really action it up to this point in time? Has it affected school renovations, extensions, capital construction products, or other things?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member is referring to when he asks how much it is going to cost. There is no cost associated with putting the agreement in place itself, but whether or not any of the construction projects have been hung up, no. As I said in my previous answer to this, no. School boards have been able to enter into side agreements with the churches that they are dealing with, until we get the master agreement in place.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In accordance with section 35 of the Medical Care Insurance Act, I am pleased to table the Newfoundland Medical Care Insurance Commission Annual Report for the year ended March 31, 1999.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to now table in the House, six copies of two Orders In Council, pursuant to section 26.(5) (a) of The Financial Administration Act. This relates to funding pre-commitments, one totaling $46 million, which relates to the Trans-Labrador Highway initiative; and the second relates to $40.7 million for the Trans-Canada Highway and regional trunk road agreements. These are done in the normal course in order to facilitate the tendering of projects and to try to get them underway in each of the years - in a timely way, I should say, next year.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the audited financial statements of the Province's Pooled Pension Fund for the year ending December 31, 1998. Perhaps just a couple of points. The pension fund grew by 18 per cent last year and now has investments with a total market value of $1.7104 billion at December 31. There were 13,943 pensioners on payroll, having a total cost of $219.8 million annually.

The two largest plans - the Public Service Pension Plan has a fund balance of $1,187.8 million and the Teachers' Pension Plan has a balance of $522.6 million.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hereby notice give notice that I will today bring forward a private member's resolution, and it reads:

WHEREAS the employment insurance program is funded by workers and the employers and has in excess of a $20 billion accumulated surplus; and

WHEREAS the federal government has cut over $9 billion from the program's benefits since 1993 and, as a result, only 36 per cent of unemployed Canadians are receiving EI benefits today; and

WHEREAS seasonal industries in Canada, such as fishing, logging, tourism and construction, are critical to our economy, especially to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, and result in the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs and make a major contribution to Canada's balance of trade; and

WHEREAS the 1996 federal Employment Insurance Act has resulted in smaller benefits for unemployed workers because of the punitive deviser and intensity rules; and

WHEREAS the cuts to the EI program have already deprived thousands of people and their families in our Province of benefits and have a negative economic impact on our communities and local businesses; and

WHEREAS government studies have shown that employment insurance serves as an economic stabilizer during economic downturns and saves jobs during those recessions;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House call for an immediate review of the Employment Insurance Act with a view to reestablishing levels of employment insurance coverage and returning EI surplus money to unemployed workers through improved benefits.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to bring forward a petition as put forward by people from Bonavista South and Trinity North. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;

Whereas the areas of the Province administered by the Peninsulas Health Care Corporation do not have dialysis services available and the people in our area who require regular dialysis services often must relocate permanently to St. John's and incur the financial and emotional cost of being uprooted to get the health care they need in order to live; and

Whereas it is our understanding that working dialysis units are being sent out of this Province and to other countries when the local need is great; and

Whereas it is a principle of Canada's Medicare system that people should have reasonable access to basic health care services without suffering discrimination on the basis of where they live;

Wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to approve the stationing of a dialysis unit in the area serviced by the Peninsulas Health Care Corporation and also provide staff, training and resources to ensure the regular operation of this dialysis unit.

The Member for Baie Verte has stood and presented petitions as it relates to his general area, but this particular petition comes from the Bonavista Bay, the Trinity Bay area, and their plea is to ask government to have a dialysis unit located somewhere in the area covered by the Peninsulas Health Care Corporation. They are not asking a dialysis unit machine to be placed in every hospital or in every community. They are saying: Look, we are willing to travel. We realize that it is not the best of economic times and everybody cannot have all facilities or all treatments available to them within their own community.

MR. TULK: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it is a petition, I say to the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is totally unfair and I think it is totally out of sync with the times that we live in when people have to close up their homes - and in some cases seniors - bar up their windows, move into St. John's, rent an apartment, buy furniture and almost mortgage their life in order to access this life-giving treatment. It is not an option for them to go somewhere else. The only way that those people can survive and live is to move away from their families, move away from their communities, move into St. John's, and take on this new way of living in order to be able to access this service.

One particular resident in my district has been here now for four years living at the hostel. Every Monday morning he loads up his truck with clothes, with food, has to bring it in and unload it into the hostel. Friday evening it is the reverse of that. He cleans out the room and goes home again. He cannot even maintain his own room here at the hostel without paying a charge. He cannot even maintain a place where he can store his clothing or store his belongings during the weekend while he is gone. It is a situation where this one individual has had other medical treatments in the past and is on special diets. He finds himself on social services right now and the only way he can access his food is to go down to the cafeteria with the vouchers that are supplied by the department of social services. He has come in to this building and I have arranged meetings for him with the Departments of Human Resources and Employment and Health and Community Services. The plea has been: If I am going to have to stay here at the hostel, then maybe you can make it a little more palatable for me. Maybe instead of giving me the vouchers to go down into the cafeteria to eat cafeteria food, maybe -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - the value of those vouchers might be given to him in the form of a cheque where he could go out and pick up the food that he needs in order to maintain his own diet. That is not even available to him, I say to members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, it is a plea again to have dialysis units located in strategic areas where people will live with some degree of decency. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I am again pleased today to rise to speak to this very particular petition, and commend the Member for Bonavista South for continuing to do so on behalf of people in his district who obviously have a very similar circumstance to the people in my district, another rural district. I say to my colleague that we are - and I know, because I have talked to him on many occasions - going to continue, every single day if we can, to raise that issue in this particular House of Assembly.

Before the Premier leaves the House today, I just want to remind him, on this petition, that when I spoke on one about one year ago, at least some financial compensation for these people may at least be an interim bit of help for them. Besides the emotional stress of having to deal with that, and some of the things that my colleague talked about, there is the financial stress on families that just cannot take it anymore. The Premier at the time when I did make that suggestion - that they would at least look at some kind of financial compensation for people who have to travel such long distances, with gas, accommodations, and other expenses, that they would at least consider that - did not say no to that request. It is something he said he would consider.

So I make another compassionate plea to the Premier and his colleagues today that they would at least consider that. That is only the minimum request. The real request, like my colleague said, is for the government to please look at the map again. That is what I say to the ministers. Remember how rural Newfoundland and Labrador is on our coastlines, and remember the many roads around the Province that are in tough conditions. Put all those factors together. Then, another bit of advice I would give them, if they would take it - and I am sure they would on this particular issue - is sit down with the people, who are directly affected by this, the people in this Province.

One gentleman did say I could use his name, and asked me to use it. That is Ron Dempsey in Fleur de Lys. This is a man who worked very hard all his life and now at a little older age, not too old, still wants to enjoy life, is just emotionally drained and stressed out on this particular issue. When I sat with his wife, I could see the pain in her face as she described the situation at their home. I really genuinely feel for those people. I know them personally.

Then there is the other gentleman - I have not asked to use his name, so I will not in the House - who lives in La Scie. He is an elderly gentleman who found the strain so much, not so much from the economical point of view but the emotional stress, that do you know what he did? He left his home in La Scie in the winter months and actually got a cabin that he lives in at Badger Lake so he can be closer to a dialysis machine. That is what he did, bought a cabin at Badger Lake and moved in so they would be only a few minutes from the dialysis services which he needs so desperately.

Those are just two examples, and I am sure I can give you many more examples of the situations where people look for this lifelong service. I am going to tell this House today and tell each member in it - I know my colleague for Bonavista South has said the same thing - that we are going to continue as often as we can to drive home that point. Maybe it will take that long, I do not know. I am hoping that when this government sits down at their Cabinet table and at their budgetary meetings with their health boards and so on that they would look very seriously at the situation and review - up to date - the situation as we find ourselves in this Province now with dialysis services. If they do genuinely look at that, then I think that they will seriously consider the many people in this Province, in rural Newfoundland, who have to travel some three and one-half hours by road in the wintertime. A lot of them are elderly people who have to turn to the road to travel to a dialysis machine and then sit at that machine and travel back again. It is incredible. It is a story that needs to be told in this Province and we intend to do what we can here to make sure that that message gets out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - that we will get some satisfaction for the people in this Province on this particular issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991,” carried. (Bill 39)

On motion, Bill 39 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law”. (Bill 24)

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say, in response to my hon. friends' questions, that this is among the most portentous bills that come to this House in the run of a year, and I always have the pleasure of introducing it. Or last year, at least.

In any event, unless anybody has serious trouble with anything, or unless anything of substance has crept in here, which is not normally the case, I would recommend it to the House for passage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Minister of Justice has indicated, this act, Bill 24, An Act to Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law, essentially just corrects the mistakes of the past and recognizes twenty-nine different clauses and different pieces of legislation that had to be improved largely because of technical reasons.

The preamble in the Explanatory Notes basically illustrates the purpose of such legislation, particularly when it states that the amendments in this bill have been brought to the minister's attention and “are technical amendments not involving matters of policy. Each amendment is explained by reference to the clause of the Bill by which it is proposed.”

It is interesting to note, though, in paragraph 11, we see an amendment of the Gasoline Tax Act which raises the tax from 14.2 cents a liter to 15 cents a liter, and makes the tax retroactive to April 1, 1994.

We have a situation here where it is arguable that government has been collecting the higher rate for the past number of years without the requisite statutory approval to do so. However, if memory serves me correct, this is for a particular region of the Province and is not Province-wide. Nevertheless, there is an argument to be made that in some region of the Province we have taxes being collected without the appropriate and proper statutory acknowledgments under the Gasoline Tax Act.

Of course, we have a situation that was addressed last week by several members in this House, certainly on this side of the Legislature, that we have gasoline tax which is the highest in the country anyway, and I referred specifically to Labrador West where a liter of gas is in excess of 82 cents a liter, and in the capital city, in the City of St. John's, we have consumers purchasing unleaded gasoline at 75.9 cents a liter when the Canadian average is 65 cents a liter.

It is interesting, although the preamble of the bill states that we are talking about technical changes, grammatical changes, typographical errors, nevertheless section 11 in and of itself certainly raises the fact and raises the issue that we now have a retroactive tax being put in place simply because of the statutes' inability to have dealt with it properly, either by statute or by regulation.

Another item worthy of note is paragraph 18, I would suggest, which gives the Medical Care Commission, of course, which is soon to leave the Department of Health, the right to collect medical costs from an insured person's insurance company, even if there are insufficient funds to recover all these claims for losses or for injury.

That is an example, perhaps, where I think the public ought to be aware of the fact that although a statute is entitled, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law, and, as the preamble indicates in the legislation, are to be mean changes of a technical nature, that may not always be the case.

It is important, I think, that certainly members of the House and any member of the public who may indeed be interested, review this legislation to ensure government does not seize the opportunity to simply slip something through under the guise of it being either technical or under the guise of simply correcting a typographical error, and that could easily be done. That is why it is important, it seems to me, to scrutinize such legislation which, in and of itself, the purpose of which is to simply make technical changes and to make the type of technical or typographical changes that are often required from time to time upon review and scrutiny of statute law.

With the exception perhaps of those points that have been raised, certainly there is no need, I see, to continue discussing the specifics of this legislation; but it is important to note that this act has a purpose, has an intention. It is designed to correct mistakes of the past, and one must always be on his or her guard to ensure that they are indeed changes of a technical nature and not matters of policy affecting the people of this Province in any way.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not take up too much time on this bill. It is, as the minister said in introducing it, mainly dealing with errors and anomalies in existing legislation that have been discovered by people in the department or by the law clerks of the House. Although I suppose it is interesting to note that, for example, clause 4 of the bill in fact amends another act which was designed to remove anomalies and errors in the statute law. So, even when we are bringing legislation before the House of Assembly to remove anomalies and errors in the statute law, these bills themselves contain anomalies and errors that have to be corrected by a later bill.

I guess it is like Alice in Wonderland; words can mean whatever we say they mean.

AN HON. MEMBER: Words are important.

That being said, I certainly have no further comments to make about the legislation that we have here except that to have, in any one year, twenty-nine errors and anomalies in the statute law, many of which are changing numbers, sections, and words in particular statutes that have obviously been put there in error or incorrect references; as I say, if we had a little closer scrutiny of the legislation then we would certainly have a lot less legislation to correct in an annual bill called, An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DICKS: Considering all the substantial questions raised in the matter, I was tempted to table the motion but, on second thought, maybe I will move second reading instead.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law”, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 24)

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

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel Act”. (Bill 25)

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This particular bill is a little bit more interesting than the previous statute or bill that we had an opportunity to discuss. It raises some interesting issues: Subsection 3(2) of the Queen's Counsel Act being amended by striking out the figure “5" and substituting the figure “10".

When we look at the old section, it basically states - and I will read it: The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may only appoint five Queen's Counsel during a calendar year but the appointments for a calendar year may be increased by the number for which the appointments for a preceding year have not yet been filled.

As the minister indicated, it is an attempt to raise the number of designations from five to ten; however, I think it is important to state that if this change is going to mean anything, and if this is supposedly an amendment that will improve the circumstances, it must be an appointment or a designation that recognizes merit. It is as simple as that. We have seen too many examples where a designation - which is important amongst a number of the members of the legal profession, and I may say is not particularly important amongst many others, but to those to whom it is important it must remain a designation of significance, of meaning.

I will just repeat some of the qualities, some of the criteria, that if this change is going to be of substance, and if this change is going to be meaningful, some of the criteria that the minister ought to consider would be experience in the profession - perhaps trial experience for example; the number of years that a particular person has served before the Bar of the Province. It could include a contribution to the professional development of the legal profession in the Province. It could also recognize community and voluntary experience and efforts by a particular lawyer.

What we see and what we have seen in the past by this particular practice being adopted by this government is total abuse of the significance of Queen's Counsel, particularly to those who feel that such a designation is important.

I would make two suggestions, therefore. One is that we scrap it. If the trend and the practice continues, that there is no recognition being given to merit and no realization that a person's contribution to the profession is in fact being considered, I would submit that we scrap it. It is simply then, in that case, not worth the paper it is written on.

If it is rendered as a result of it being meaningful, recognizing merit, contribution to the profession, contribution to the community, experience at the Bar, experience in a court of our Province, these are the types of qualities and the types of criteria, if legitimately being considered by government, could make this designation worthwhile.

The problem is, though, government is not bound by this list and government is free then to choose a person of their own free will, with total ignorance of the information that is being provided. I would say that if that trend continues, the whole process and designation of Queen's Counsel is simply not worth it.

As I see it, there are two alternatives for government as they do in the Province of Ontario - just do away with the practice completely, where Queen's Counsel has been discontinued, to the best of my understanding.; or, by statue, the formulation of a committee under the auspices and guidance of the Law Society that will have total responsibility for the selection of Queen's Counsel in any particular calendar year. I would suggest that a number no greater than whatever it is - seven, eight, or ten; that is relatively arbitrary - if it is based on merit, and if there is a group of individuals that ought to be recognized by the government of the day, in recognition of their contribution to the profession, and recognizes value, merit and contribution, it means something. If it does not do that, it means nothing and therefore the alternative should be - as I have suggested earlier - let's do away with the practice altogether.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened with interest to the comments of my learned friend from St. John's East and I agree that we have a system which is governed, in part at least, by the patronage system. I hope he was not being all inclusive when he indicated that Q.C.'s have their appointment by virtue of some favor to the governing party or other role that is undeserving in receiving a designation of Q.C. Otherwise, I would have expected that his amendment -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would tend to agree with the sentiments expressed by the Member for St. John's East in that, from time to time we see appointments of Queen's Counsel who are clearly the result of political patronage. Whether that is more the case than less, I am not able to say. I know his Party has some experience in government here in the Province and presumably was a part of whatever the history of the Queen's Counsel designation was. Certainly the seventeen years of Tory power contributed to perhaps the majority of existing Queen's Counsels that we have. If he is telling us, from his experience as a party in government, that is what they did, then I guess what he is telling us is that if they were there again they would do it differently. They would reform themselves and only give the designation to meritorious persons.

I guess it is one of those things that is very difficult to reform without a system that has been suggested by my learned friend. I don't have any difficulty supporting an amendment - I have not seen the wording of it yet - that would provide a greater degree of scrutiny to ensure that people who receive the Queen's Counsel designation at least have that degree of experience in our courts that would give the Queen's Counsel designation some recognition of someone who is actually an experienced advocate in the superior courts of our Province. Generally speaking, I think it is expected that a Queen's Counsel is a person who can take and has experience in taking relatively serious and significant matters through the court system.

We have had situations where people have been given a Queen's Counsel designation who have never appeared in court at all, which is certainly a debasement of the institution of Queen's Counsels in legal history.

I think there is a legal need for some reform in the appointment process, and I would hope that members opposite would listen to the suggestions of the Member for St. John's East in that regard. Although I do see, and I think there is some merit in what the government suggests, that if we are to continue with the designation of Queen's Counsel, the numbers as they stand right now do not allow an opportunity for many senior counsel whose colleagues, I guess, would expect that they would be in receipt of a Queen's Counsel at this particular stage in their careers, based on their experience, ability and merit in the legal profession, that the number of five - given the number of admissions that we have to the Bar in the last number of years - appears to be inadequate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that members are generally supportive. I should point out, in terms of the process, there is a formal process. Nobody can be appointed a Q.C. unless they are recommended by the committee. So, really, this is just a minor amendment as to the number of names, and I think people recognize that the size of the Bar dictates that it is time to increase it. I think members recognize that, given the size of the Bar currently, it is time to increase the numbers to something more reasonable. Five certainly, in this day and age, given the size of the Bar, does not really seem to meet the need and the number of people at the Bar who deserve this distinction.

That being said, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support and I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel Act”, read a second time, referred to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow. (Bill 25)

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

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Loan (Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund) Act, 1966.” (Bill 38)

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In years past, when the government was less conscientious and when there were other people involved, government did an awful thing called incurring deficits which in turn led a mounting provincial debt. The unfortunate legacy of that is that at the current time, when we are not borrowing any money, we still have to go out and refinance monies that were borrowed many years ago. Some of those monies that were borrowed were from the Canada Pension Plan. Recently, as a result of some great concern throughout the country that there would not be sufficient monies to pay the pensions when they became due, the Ministers of Finance over the last several years came up with a plan to fully fund the pension plan.

Prior to this time, the sole portfolio items that the Canada Pension Plan had were loans to the provincial and federal governments. Those were in the nature of fixed rate securities with which hon. members would be familiar. It was decided that the government would not now in the future lend at what were preferential rates to the provinces, because the notion was to make the plan stable and fully funded in and as itself. So, as of now, the provinces will be able to borrow from the fund if they choose, but it will be at the rate that they would get in the normal security market in the country.

Now, as a consequence of this - and it is a rather long explanation, but to put it in perspective - where we had securities in the past that we had borrowed from the Canada Pension Plan, we now have the right but not the obligation to roll those securities over. So, what this allows us to do is to roll over the monies that we now owe to the Canada Pension Plan as they become due. For example, we might this year - and this does apply in the current year - we might have a plan or a debt obligation to the Canada Pension Plan in the amount of $20 million which will become due this year. In fact, it is well closer to $30 million. When it becomes due, we have the option to roll it over. The advantage to the Province in so doing is that we would save ourselves the placement cost of these securities.

So, what this act does is, it enables us to roll over these securities and I would recommend it to the House. It is not incurring any new debt obligation. It is a matter that we often do in our ordinary lives, refinance our mortgage for the balance that is due, and whatever the case may be. In this case we probably have some savings because we do not have to pay the cost of placement in the private market, if you would call it that, which often carries with it something in the order of three-quarters of a percentage. If you borrow in the European market it can be as much as 3 per cent of the gross amount that you borrow. We avoid paying those fees by renewing the security. What this act does very clearly in the two sections which it has is allow us to issue replacement securities which postpone the maturity or, in essence, refinance the debt obligation out for whatever period is appropriate, be it five, ten, fifteen, twenty or in some cases thirty years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We on this side have looked at the intent of government and we understand what is being done and why it is being done. We also want to point out that it has not been unusual, of course, as the minister said, for government to borrow from the Canada Pension Fund. That has been done for great numbers of years. As a matter of fact, many of the items of infrastructure we have in Newfoundland result from the borrowings of governments over many years from that particular fund. The concern we have of course is that these changes not have any net negative affects on the cost of borrowing. It certainly has not been explained by the minister as to whether or not the net affect will be that we will save money by this rearranging or that it will cost us additional money. What is happening here is purely, in some ways, a housekeeping item and we understand that it is necessary to do that from time to time.

Just a little while ago one of the people who worked with the Province, and worked in this very building for nearly thirty years, retired. When I was going along to say to him congratulations on your retirement, I wish you well and hope you have many years of happiness, he said to me: I have to go immediately and look for another job. I said: You have your pension, you are sixty years old. He said: That is not quite sufficient for me to live on and be able to keep my wife and I in some acceptable standard of living. His pension, after all that time, was just around $11,000 to $12,000. I kind of felt sorry for him because I cannot imagine someone working for that length of time and then getting not quite $12,000 in pension benefits. This is a matter has been brought forward by many speakers who come to this House, the great numbers of people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: I can see the Minister of Fisheries yawning because we are talking here about treating people properly. The Minister of Fisheries is not into treating people properly. For example, many people in his own district, who are retired public servants, some of them, after many years - in the public service there is somewhere around 300 pensioners who are getting less than $300 a month in pension benefits. There are 2,180 of them getting less than $9,000 a year. Yet the Minister of Fisheries finds bringing that up to be quite unacceptable.

I can see where he would find it unacceptable because his government has listened out in the corridors of this Legislature for many months to public service pensioners who come forward here and say: Why didn't you look after our pension funds a little better? Mr. Speaker, what public service pensioners have been saying is that they expected government - and to a certain extent, they expected their union representatives - to be wiser in their management of the public service pension fund.

Again, I acknowledge that what we are doing here today is not directly connected to public service pensions, but we have to take every opportunity we can to bring forward the issues that concern these retirees. While this government did, last year, introduce a small measure to look after some of the lowest income people, they certainly did not do what was necessary to be done and looked after all of the public service pensioners in a fair and equitable manner.

We have a lot of public service pensioners who are living in very poor housing, who have to depend on charity. It is not unusual for me to hear tell of pensioners who have to go and rely on St. Vincent De Paul or the other church food bank at Cochrane Street United Church, or to go to the Salvation Army or some other agency in order to be able to get some help. In fact, I know of some members of this House, some MHAs, who in some cases dip into their own constituency allowances to help out retirees. I know some members who do that on a regular basis. Sometimes to their own detrimental, I might say.

MR. HEDDERSON: On this side of the House (inaudible)?

MR. H. HODDER: There are members on both sides of the House, I say to my colleague for

Harbour Main-Whitbourne, who have to sometimes reach into their own pockets to try to help out some of the retirees who live in their constituency, in a very direct manner, and that should not be. We should be looking after our retirees in a much more acceptable manner.

MR. H. HODDER: The Opposition House Leader tells about help that came through for a lady he is familiar with, four months after she had passed away, which is rather shameful.

With these few comments - there are several other speakers on this side of the House who want to have comments on this particular piece of legislation - I will give up some of my time so we can get this piece of legislation properly debated this afternoon and other speakers can have an opportunity to speak.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise and speak for a few moments on Bill 39, An Act To Amend The Public Service Pension Act -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: We are not doing that one, I am sorry. It is not Bill 39. It is the legislation with respect to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund Act, Bill 38, currently before the House. I agree with the sentiments expressed by the minister in that we are moving toward - and so we should be - a fully funded pension system, but it does provide an opportunity to talk about pensions in the Province and the fact that so many people in this Province are not adequately protected by pensions. In fact, the single largest group of poorer adults in this Province are people who are, in fact, retired and who no longer have the ability to earn an income in our society because of retirement laws, and in some cases because of age and ill health.

Mr. Speaker, many of the people who are retired are not, in fact, in receipt of old age pensions from the Government of Canada because they are not sixty-five years of age. We have so many people who are out of the workforce at earlier ages than sixty-five, some as young as fifty and early fifties, who have no reasonable prospect of further employment because, despite the rosy picture being painted by the provincial government, we, in fact, have 36,000 people in this Province unemployed. We have a lower participation rate in the workforce than the rest of Canada. The participation rate for Newfoundland is 52.8 per cent, compared to the Canadian average of 65 per cent. Participation rate means people who are either working or actively seeking employment. What that means is that, primarily because of the job situation, so many people have given up looking for work or are not actively seeking work because they know that work is not available for them. So, with13 per cent of our labour force, or potential labour force - not even part of the labour force, because of that - our unemployment rate is actually far higher than it appears to be by the numbers that are glowing represented by the Minister of Human Resources and Employment as she did today.

The position of people who are not working in this Province, who are in receipt of some pension, is in many respects so desperate that, as the previous speaker, the Member for Waterford Valley said, they need to get another job to be able to afford to live and to be able to live at a rate above the poverty level.

We have serious problems amongst pensioners in this Province, public service pensioners as well. Clearly, their circumstance has been outlined to this House on many, many occasions by this member and by others. They have demonstrated time and again in our lobby. They have been the subject of much Open Line comment. They have been petitioning this House and been trying unsuccessfully since 1989 to get a raise in their pensions from this government. For ten years they have been left in the shadows when the government increased the wage rate for public sector workers and traditionally, as part of the legitimate expectation of these pensioners, received a pension increase at the same rate as was given to the public sector workers.

That was a part of the pension plan, I would say, although it was not legally required. It was a traditional form of what otherwise might be called indexing. Some people have indexed pension plans; not many, I might add, but certainly the public service pensioners of this Province benefitted from a form of indexing with the tradition that was there, not written in law or written in a collective agreement. In fact, the government took the position for many, many years that pensions were not properly the subject of collective bargaining. How they got away with it legally is another story, but that was the position taken by the government of this Province for many, many years, that public service pensions were not negotiable.

It is not legitimate then, of course, for the Minister of Finance or others to blame the unions or blame NAPE for failing to negotiate pension increases. In fact, they were turned down on many occasions by this government or previous governments when they attempted to do so and put it into collective agreement.

We see, in the Province of Quebec - and I think we can learn things from the Province of Quebec - how they manage their pension funds to pursue the interests of the people of Quebec in terms of investment in enterprise, investment in jobs, and investment in their future. We have a great opportunity here to influence decisions of investors, to influence decisions of large corporations, to reward - if I might use it that way - those companies and individuals with ideas that would be used to advance the economic interest of the people of this Province.

When we see the banks having policies that in fact shy away from capital in Newfoundland and Labrador from time to time, when we see much of the investment that takes place in pension funds being done through the New York or Toronto stock exchanges, or places outside this Province, we can see that much of the capital that rests in pension funds - which are in fact the savings of the taxpayers, they are savings of the workers, put together in a lump sum to provide for the long term interest of the pensions, and make sure that when the time comes there is money there to pay the pension of a former government worker or a teacher or a university professor or other people in the Province - that is a very large pool of capital.

We have seen for example the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund have a great deal of influence in some things that happen in the corporate world. We see in Quebec and even in this Province the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund apparently being one of the groups very interested in seeing the NEOS bid succeed, or at least interested in lifting the 15 per cent so they can maximize the return on their shares. They are doing that in the interest of the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund, not in the interest of FPI, not in the interest of the fishery industry in Newfoundland, not in the interest of Newfoundlanders. They are being doing it in the interest of themselves as shareholders.

We see in Quebec the depôt de placement is a pool of pension funds of Ontario. They play a significant role. In fact, I think they are probably one of the major shareholders in Air Canada. I think I read that recently.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

What I'm saying is that we do not do that here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have hundreds of millions of dollars in pension funds, whether it be the university pension fund, the public service pension fund -

MR. TULK: Are you reading my mail?

Mr. Speaker, we do have hundred of millions of dollars of the savings of the people of this Province, whether they be in the form of pension deductions or taxes to this government, that are being pooled now and put into funds that are used to invest in mortgages, or used to invest in stocks and bonds outside this Province, with no requirement that any percentage of them be held within the Province because the rules are not designed that way.

We have to start looking at that. When we have these large pools of capital, we have to understand that these large pools of capital in our pension funds can play a role in the development of our economy and the development of jobs in our Newfoundland and Labrador economy, ensure good quality jobs, ensure high standards of work, high employment standards, and good solid jobs. In addition to the standard pension funds, we have large private sources of capital, private pension funds, some of which are controlled by the construction trade unions, normally outside of the Province.

They have to carefully managed. They cannot be used as a form of political favoritism or patronage. We have to be careful about that. At the same time, these very large substantial pools of capital can be used to influence, with proper criteria and standards, the development of our own economy to provide for economic expansion and to ensure good quality high paying jobs, whether they be in the construction of facilities that are financed by a pension fund, or whether they be in the operation of a business that employs people on an ongoing basis on a profitable business, or even a non-profit enterprise that needs a source of capital to provide for a long term job circumstance.

It may be an idea that could properly be examined by a select committee of this House. It might be an idea to appoint a committee from all parties in the House to look at the idea of seeing how the pension funds that this Province has, whether they are controlled directly by government through the Pool Pension Fund, or whether we have the other matter such as the Memorial University Pension Plan.

If there is $1 billion there of assets, that $1 billion is invested on behalf of this pension fund, in bonds, in debentures, in stocks and shares of corporations, presumably some in the Province but much of it would be, in fact, outside the Province. I think what we need to do, while being cautious and prudent with assets of these values, is find ways, such as has been done in the Province of Quebec, to use these assets and funds to find ways of promoting industrial development, promoting an investment climate that is attractive to certain types of investors who are in need of capital for activity in this Province.

It is something that ought to be looked at - looked at closely and carefully but certainly looked at - because we should not let any opportunity go to find proper and satisfactory use of the assets that we have available to us to promote economic development and to promote jobs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice. If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Loan (Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund) Act, 1966”, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 38).

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

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code”. ( Bill 37).

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These are not substantial amendments. They have to do with the recent court decision which identified a few problems with the act. The way it reads right now is that the remuneration that is due as said may be paid on the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, these amendments arise out of a court decision some time ago. We questioned the impartiality of the people who were appointed as adjudicators of the board. Some of the language - and I do not agree entirely with the judge, but he said that because there was some uncertainty over the tenure of the appointments and the payment of the monies for someone who was served and adjudicated upon these matters that it had to be remedied; otherwise, they were not considered impartial.

If I can start from the bottom, which is the amendment to section 2.(6), it says, “Members of a panel shall be paid at rates....” I think before it was language such as: may be paid at rates.

The judge felt that, because it said may, it did not really give the certainty and so on like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) pay them anyway.

MR. DICKS: They were always paid, Mr. Speaker, probably not lavishly enough but they were certainly - I know of no case in which they were not paid. In point of fact, they were -

AN HON. MEMBER: Underpaid.

MR. DICKS: Yes, that is right.

There are other things here dealing with the appointment of the members. There was some concern expressed about the fact that the minister could appoint them and now they will be appointed on the recommendation of the minister. That would, of course, mean it would be an appointment by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. This, of course, allows the Lieutenant-

Governor in Council to terminate the appointment of the member of the panel for cause. This gives the members greater security. They are appointed for a term and can only be removed for a cause.

The first section just deals and clarifies, after subsection 4 of section 21, the process which allows the application for an order under subsection 4 to be done by originating application within thirty days of receipt of the complaint.

Really what it does is, it limits the time that applications may be made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: I am certain now that members see the obvious need and necessity for these far-reaching and profound amendments to the Human Rights Code and I therefore move that the House, in its wisdom, consider their adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to thank the House for its undivided attention.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Human Rights legislation is very important legislation certainly in all the provinces, and, of course, the federal act as well which enshrines the rights of all individuals, all Canadians, irregardless of differences, whether it be with respect to race, creed, religion, gender or whatever the particular characteristic may be, but it is important that this legislation be safeguarded at all costs and that individuals of any background can feel protected in any jurisdiction in this country.

The changes under section 21.(4) of the Human Rights Code: A complainant may appeal to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of the Province if the Human Rights Commission refuses to refer a complaint to the Board of Inquiry; but the act does not set a time limit for an application to the court.

Clause 1 of Bill 38 adds new section 21.(5) which provides for a thirty day time limit for an appeal to the court. Again, all this does is, it tends to organize and codify the right of an individual to make an application to court within a particular period of time, which ensures that the matter can be heard expeditiously and that an individual may indeed, in a more structured way, have his complaint referred to the Supreme Court.

The amendments in clause 2 do not make any substantive changes to subsection 25, subsection 1 and subsection 6. Currently, Cabinet can remove an individual from a public inquiry panel and fix the remuneration of panel members on the recommendation of the minister. So clause 2 simply removes reference to the minister and essentially the second change - clause 2 of Bill 37 - is organizational in nature and does not, in any substantive way, change the nature of the legislation.

Again, the changes are not striking in any way. They help just to tighten the legislation to ensure that individuals, as I have indicated earlier, of any background can feel protected in this country, regardless of the jurisdiction, regardless of the province, and regardless of the nature of the basis of the complaint.

Other than that, there is really no further comment with respect to An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code. Any further comment will be made during Committee stage.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the Member for St. John's East for his very lucid explanation of the various clauses of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Human Rights Code is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have in our Province because it provides the basis of those seeking protection from discrimination to be able to seek redress through the Human Rights Commission and various Human Rights Tribunals. Therefore, the rules of access to those tribunals and to the courts are very, very important. I hope, at least, the minister or other speakers will comment on the concern that I am about to raise with respect to access to the Human Rights Commission and even to the courts by way of appeal.

We have currently a six-month limitation period on actions to be brought to the Human Rights Commission within six months after an incident has taken place or six months after a continuing incident has ceased. That is provided for in section 22 of the current Human Rights Code. That six-month period sounds like a long time, but in the area of human rights I am opposed to a limitation period of that nature which prohibits and prevents people with legitimate complaints and legitimate human rights complaints from having an opportunity to bring them forth when they may not be aware of those rights, when they may not be aware that the limitation period is something that affects them.

We are very used to limitation periods with respect to car accidents. The public is used to limitation periods with respect to civil actions against doctors or hospitals, or civil actions in general. They know, in general, that there is a time limit for suing. With respect to human rights, that is a different type of circumstance. We are talking about an area that is not fully understood by the public, necessarily. We are talking about nuances of law that change from time to time, and we are talking about circumstances. Quite often, the people who are victims of human rights abuses are those who are particularly vulnerable and are not disposed to have immediate access either to proper legal advice or to a solution.

I think that limitation period of six months to go to the Human Rights Tribunal itself ought to be amended and increased to at least to that which is available for lawsuits under the general law against any other individual. Most human rights abuses are ones that are against institutions, employers or landlords, and they have in their civil rights, generally, at least a two year limitation period for most actions. Whereas for human rights for some reason, a right that we value presumably more highly than the right to sue for a breach of contract, or a torte, for a right that we value more highly, our very human rights themselves, we have only a six month limitation period. I think that is wrong. I suggest that all of us here, if we considered it, would regard our human rights and our rights to be free from discrimination as more important than our right to sue someone for a breach of contract.

It seems, though, that in our society property rights, the right to sue for a breach of contract, the right to sue for a wrong done to someone in a car accident, for example, seems to be alive for two full years. Two full years at least for breach of contract. More than that, six years! For a violation of your basic fundamental human rights, you only have a limitation period of six months. I hope that hon. members will consider this and support efforts to change that so that we have more than six months to bring application for human rights, and I would submit that an application for such should be a minimum of two years. I would question whether even a two year limitation period would be acceptable when we are dealing with a question of human rights violations.

The second issue has to do with the ability to pursue those rights. There should be an exemption or a right of a court to waive whatever limitation period there is in the event that a person, by reason of a disability, is incapable of exercising their rights within whatever limitation period there is. We have had examples in this Province. Some of you may know this particular case of a government employee who has been unable to pursue a human rights complaint because of limitation periods and because that person was unable to because of injury pursue matters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

We are talking about a very important issue of human rights in this Province. I am suggesting that we ought to consider very carefully -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

Mr. Speaker, similarly, the provision here limits right of appeal for thirty days from a decision by the Human Rights Commission not to refer a matter to a commission. Normally, an action to the courts from a decision by a tribunal is a six month period (inaudible). If we have a straight right of appeal, if the court can substitute its opinion for that of the Human Rights Commission, then it maybe a different matter. That will require a closer examination of the legislation to see, but for many tribunals, to take a matter from the Labour Relations Board to the court, there is a six month period during which an application to be made can be made to the court.

I'm wondering whether or not there is a consistency or an inconsistency here wherein the rights for someone who is complaining of a human rights violation are in fact more restrictive than those who are seeking redress from the decision of a tribunal such as the Labour Relations Board or the Labour Standards Board.

Those are my comments on this very important legislation and this very important issue of human rights. I think that because of the nature of human rights legislation it is always subject to modification and improvement. I am not satisfied that all of the areas of human rights protection that can be protected are, in fact, included in our act, but I wanted to take this opportunity to point out the inadequacy of the limitation periods for initially bringing an application to the Human Rights Commission, and an inadequacy in the ability of a court or the Commission to wave those limitation periods when in fact there is good reason to do so. Those two issues I think need to be addressed as soon as we possibly can.

Secondly, I think we should have a closer look at this thirty day limitation period on bringing an application to the court, and perhaps consider changing it to make it the same six month limitation period that applies to cases of the Labour Relations Board and other statutory tribunals to whom redress to the courts through (inaudible) or other applications the court can be had.

That being said, Mr. Speaker, those are my comments at second reading of the bill, and I look forward to the Committee stage where we can discuss these issues in more detail.

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

The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my friend the Minister of Justice I would move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 37)

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Physiotherapy Act”. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Specifically, the amendments will provide for the registration of physiotherapists on a conditional or temporary basis, whereas now they do not have that option, provide for the setting of college membership criteria in the regulations, provide for a new council structure, provide for the ability to regulate physiotherapy auxiliaries in case that they are needed to provide care, provide the direct patient access to physiotherapy services as opposed to physician referral, and also to provide for clearly articulated disciplinary procedures which again are in keeping with our White Paper and mostly identifying a much more open disciplinary procedure.

These amendments will give the college of physiotherapists the authority to issue conditional and temporary licences. Again, this was an area that was raised by physiotherapists who have recently come to the Province, and in fact have come with their spouses and have been unable to work because that provision was not there. This will provide for greater flexibility in licensing physiotherapists from other jurisdictions including other countries, as well as responding to special circumstances, as when physiotherapists visit our Province in support of sports teams.

The changes in the council structure again are essentially housekeeping measures. The current criteria for membership is outdated and it does not reflect the current national credentialing process, nor the adoption of the physiotherapy national exam by all provinces. The proposed change in the act will remedy this problem by setting the criteria in regulations which can be updated as necessary. Because to this point in time, nothing has been able to be done to address this issue because of its legislative capacity.

Proposed amendments will allow for the regulation of physiotherapy auxiliaries, should this be necessary for the protection of the public. In removing the barrier to direct patient access to physiotherapy services we have sought - this is important - and received the support of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association. Currently we are the only province in Canada that requires physician referral for physiotherapy services. This change will provide greater accessibility to physiotherapy services by the public.

The new amendments will update the disciplinary procedures, and this again is in keeping with the government's plan to standardize such provisions in all of our professional acts pursuant to the White Paper on the regulations of occupation.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a few comments now, and if we have any further details when we get to Committee I will speak more then. Overall, basically, we certainly support the registration basis and the increase in the council. I guess that is an agreed thing, where the medical practitioner is not going to be appointed now, a representative there, which gives them a certain degree of control or autonomy by some other medical specialty area.

Thee is one particular thing. Clause 5 of the bill repeals section 11 of the act. I did not read it clearly. Maybe the minister could, in closing, make a comment on it. It says there now: A member of the college shall not practice physiotherapy except under a referral of a patient to the member by a qualified medical practitioner. It goes on to say: And shall not diagnose or prescribe medicine or drugs.

I guess one of the biggest concerns people have out there today, especially when they need to assess, physiotherapy is the cost of assessing it on a private basis. I do know there are extremely long line-ups trying to access it through our health care system, and that is a major concern. I know that is pretty evident, but in terms of the administration of this here, I do not see any particular areas of concern that we have to unduly delay any further discussion on it.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now she will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the only - sorry?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you to the minister for providing leave, as it is traditional to allow someone to say a few words at second reading.

The amendments to the Physiotherapy Act being brought in today will have the affect of modernizing the legislation. For many years, physiotherapists in this Province have acted as independent professionals, although referrals were required from doctors in most cases in order to allow a physiotherapist to conduct a practice. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, my experience with physiotherapists over the years has been very, very positive. They are a very highly qualified group of health professionals who, with an ability to diagnose in many respects far exceeding that of medically trained professionals, MDs, for example, general MDs in particular areas certainly, with respect to the operations of the body, the musculature and the ligamentous system of the body. They have a renowned ability to understand and treat this particular type of instance, particularly in relation to injuries and assisting people in recovering from injuries.

The regulatory and disciplinary sections of the act will allow the discipline procedure to be modified so as it recognizes the principles that we have recently given support to by the self-regulating professions. We certainly support the physiotherapists to be properly in a position to regulate both entry to the profession and also to conduct disciplinary procedures in a proper way.

I think we have to recognize, too, that physiotherapists, as other professionals, do use support staff in some of the practices and support, and that they be able to be regulated and disciplined as well. I think that is appropriate too.

I want to speak generally in favor of the bill itself. The details, of course, will be the subject of further discussion and debate at the Committee stage. I do want to say that I do support the amendments to the Physiotherapy Act in principle, subject to whatever qualifications might be made on a clause-by-clause basis at second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the minister speaks now she will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think, as the previous speakers have commented, this is an act that has been supported by the Physiotherapy Association. Again, there is no intent to allow physiotherapists the ability to prescribe and order medications or other therapies. All it does is, it prevents physicians from having to specifically order a referral to a physiotherapist. As you know, this is the only Province in the country where this current law is in practice. It is one where it is often seen to slow down the process of treatment because an individual would have to go to see a physician first for the referral.

The new disciplinary procedures again are in keeping in line with our White Paper, and all of these recommendations have been discussed and are concurrent with the wishes of both the Physiotherapy Association and the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association.

I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Physiotherapy Act”, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 36)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, since there has been substantial progress and momentous legislation passed this afternoon, and the Opposition has cooperated so much, I think we are all going to agree to call it 5:00 p.m.

I move that the House do now adjourn.

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