December 22, 1992            HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS          Vol. XLI  No. 89


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, it is with pride I rise today in this House of Assembly, being an ex-fire fighter and an ex-police officer. I ask this hon. House if they would join with me in offering congratulations to a great group of men and women who prevented another disaster in St. John's last night. Many of us have read about the disaster of 1847, 1892 and now 1992, and only for the work and the alertness of those people - some of the firemen received minor injuries but thank God, nothing serious. Also, Mr. Speaker, a great lot of our history was lost last night but, Mr. Speaker, there were no lives lost and again it was mainly because of the great work by those two organizations, the St. John's Fire Department and the RNC.

Also, Mr. Speaker, you will have to give some thought to recognizing the RCMP and the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. They are always there at a time of need, and I would like you, Sir, on behalf of this hon. House to send a letter of commendation and thanks to the St. John's Fire Department and the RNC on a job well done. Mr. Speaker, I think I have seen at times when there were announcements in this House, when all hon. members gave a good round of applause, I would say today, Mr. Speaker, that I ask for the same round of applause for those men and women who saved the City of St. John's last night from destruction.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we on this side are happy to associate ourselves with the thoughts and sentiments so eloquently expressed by the gentleman for St. John's East Extern. I know he spoke for every member of the House.

The Premier and I went over this morning to the area and the Premier spoke to the men who were there. Some of the firemen who'd been there all night, some police officers, members of the Salvation Army, the other volunteer services who were there. Many of them of course had gone home.

The fire was still burning at 10:30 this morning and the desolation would be - I don't know if any hon. members have had a chance to go there - but the desolation is hard to believe. The former Social Services building, which ironically was the site of the Knights of Columbus building that burned fifty years ago almost to the day, was levelled. Nothing left except a vault in which interesting - I understand a fair number of quite valuable papers are being held. We're all hoping of course when the fire dies down that the papers are preserved.

The CLB Armoury which is an historic monument, the scene of great confederate rallies, among other memorable occasions, all that's left are some chimneys and the front door, a great piece of concrete. The Parade Street School, or the supermarket, as it became latterly, nothing left but the brick shell. On the south side of Harvey Road, between the intersection, the point where Long's Hill runs into Harvey Road, down as far as Gin's Restaurant, there is nothing left except rubble. It is astonishing.

I think it is a tribute to the men of the St. John's Fire Department and all who worked with them - the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the Light and Power crews, who have to come in and disconnect cables, the members of the volunteer services, senior officials of Social Services were there all night, I understand.

PREMIER WELLS: The police.

MR. ROBERTS: Everybody. The police were there. In fact, there was damage done to the police building. The Constabulary building had several windows cracked because of the heat and the flames.

All who were there I know realise what I'm about to say, and all in this Province have reason to be grateful to the men and the women who were there all night. The emergency services did us all proud. The devastation is complete, but the thought of what could have happened, had it not been for the efforts of these people - because if that fire had gone across Long's Hill and down into the older part of the city - Young Street and on into Lime Street and Monroe Street and these areas - as I heard a fireman say on the radio this morning, they would have been fighting it at City Hall. The whole of the area below LeMarchant Road, over at least as far as Barter's Hill, conceivably could have gone.

So I think we in the House, Sir, do owe a debt of gratitude. I'm glad the hon. gentleman raised it, and I'm happy to associate the Premier and those of us on this side with the thoughts. The Premier was there this morning personally to thank the men, and through this means we join in, on behalf of the whole Province, in thanking those men and women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the fire last night was an economic tragedy for many businesses and of course those who lost their homes in the fire and have to seek other accommodation. But what was averted was in fact a major disaster in the downtown area.

Mr. Speaker, it is an area where I grew up and some members of my own family still live on adjoining streets and I know many of the people who were evacuated last night and who had a great deal of fear about what could have happened to their own homes and to others. We are only lucky, Mr. Speaker, that no one was killed or seriously injured as a result of the fire and it is, as the Member for St. John's East quite rightly pointed out, an unfortunate legacy of this city to have had the experience of two major fires in recorded history that did extensive damage which is still talked about and we are still seeing the effects of that, Mr. Speaker, in the nature of the housing that we have.

But I think all hands, Mr. Speaker, did a very good job last night. There were the volunteer services, the Salvation Army, the official service if you will, the uniformed services of the city, the St. John's Fire Department, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and I am told, Mr. Speaker, a number of private individuals who assisted so well in directing traffic and ensuring that there was not more congestion and more danger to the members of the public seeking to have a view of what was going on. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in commending, in particular the uniformed services, the St. John's Fire Department and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and also to ask the House to offer their sympathy to those who lost their homes or businesses in the fire and particularly the CLB which lost a great legacy, as the Minister of Justice pointed out, a legacy of history for many of us but also for those who were celebrating this year the hundred anniversary of the CLB, a lot of momentos, archives and records. It is sad, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the records stored in Social Services for example are able to be preserved and to maintain some of the records that we have.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I think in the fourteen years that I have been in this House of Assembly, this might be the second time, but I believe it to be the first time, that I ever rose in this House of Assembly on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to take up too much of the time of the House. The Speaker can listen to it and rule on it, or take it under advisement, as he sees fit. Mr. Speaker, what happened in this House of Assembly last evening I believe to be an infringement of my rights, as a member of the House of Assembly and the rights of all members of the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I haven't had an opportunity to get a copy of the Hansard with last night's events in it yet, so I can't quote word for word exactly what happened.

Mr. Speaker, the point of privilege I would like to raise: It is my understanding, since I came into this House of Assembly, that I would have at least one opportunity to speak in each stage of any legislation that goes through the House of Assembly. If closure comes in my time would be limited and, in different stages, I would have different amounts of time, Mr. Speaker. All those rules are set down in our Standing Orders. Whatever happened last night, Mr. Speaker, whether it was too broad a ruling or too broad an interpretation of the closure rule or whether it was a different interpretation of the Standing Orders than has been the practice in this House of Assembly, I was denied, as a member in this House, the right to speak on the third reading of a bill that went through this House of Assembly. I had ample opportunity to speak on the second reading, I had ample opportunity to speak in the Committee stage, but, Mr. Speaker, I was denied the right that each member in this House of Assembly has, to speak on the third reading of that bill that passed yesterday, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary bill, I believe was the name of it. I don't have it in front of me now.

Mr. Speaker, that is the point of privilege I would like to raise. I would like Your Honour to consider that point of privilege and give us a ruling as to whether we do or do not have the right to speak on each stage of legislation as it goes through this House of Assembly.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in my submission, not only has the hon. gentleman not raised a point of privilege but he, in fact, has breached the privileges of the House by attempting to do what he is doing. The matter of which he makes complaint, Mr. Speaker, was dealt with thoroughly last night here in the House and led to a series of rulings from the Chair. So, in itself, there can be no question of privilege. The Chair made the rulings.

Now, the hon. gentleman apparently will not accept that the rulings: (a) were made; and (b) in my submission, reflecting the Chair's rulings on the point, are entirely consistent with practice and precedent in this House. The problem is, the hon. gentlemen opposite do not know as much as they think they know. Next, Mr. Speaker, if an hon. member doesn't agree with a ruling of the Chair there is a procedure whereby one may challenge it. That bring me to the final point I wish to make, that all the hon. gentleman is doing is attempting to challenge Your Honour's ruling of last night. If he wanted to challenge it, there is a procedure provided to him, and that is open to a member. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition nods acquiescence. He, too, is familiar, as am I, with the procedure. It is there, it is available, it is quick, it is efficacious, and it decides the issue.

All the hon. gentleman is doing is not raising a question of privilege, he is simply challenging Your Honour's decision last night and that, Sir, in my view, is a breach of the privileges of the House and it cannot be done and should not be tolerated.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to support the motion of privilege brought by the Member for Kilbride. The Government House Leader is suggesting that what he is trying to do is challenge the ruling of the House. I would submit that what he is doing is advising the Chair that in his view he cannot carry on as a member when his privileges, as a member, have been violated by the wording and the effect of what was added to the closure motion by the Government House Leader.

I just want to put this on the record, Mr. Speaker, because the closure motion, itself, which was passed in this House by the Government House Leader, contains the following words: Or whatever else might be related to Bill 56.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have carefully read Order 50, which is the authority for the closure motion, and I see nowhere in that does it give the power to the House - and I say it is the House because although the motion is moved by the Government House Leader, the House passes the closure motion - but I see no authority in Order 50 to give the House the power to add those words, 'or whatever else might be related to Bill 56,' because it is under those words that the Government House Leader sought to have the ruling that allowed the Chair to make the ruling that it made.

Despite the fact that there is no direct challenge to the ruling of the Chair, what we have, in fact, is an hon. member saying that the culminating effect of the motion made by the House, the Order 50 and the interpretation placed on it by the Speaker, the culminating effect of all those three things is that the privileges of the hon. member are breached and he, as a member, being not allowed to speak at third reading of a bill, has his privileges breached.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that is an overriding consideration that goes above and beyond challenging the ruling of the Chair, or merely a procedural objection, or loss of a procedural point. This is far beyond that and it involves what I think, Mr. Speaker, seems to be unprecedented and that is that the hon. member could not speak at third reading, neither could this hon. member speak, but I support the point of privilege being raised by the Member for Kilbride.

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

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

I want to support as well, the point of privilege raised by the Member for Kilbride and supported by the Member for St. John's East. As Your Honour knows and other members who were here last night, this turned into quite a contentious issue and just before we adjourned I had the opportunity to say that I thought we were on dangerous ground, that we were precedent setting here in the things that we did last night and I still maintain that.

The Member for Kilbride is quite correct in what he said and so is the Member for St. John's East, which makes one think out loud that that particular wording that he referred to was put in there to get the Government House Leader around, to get to the objective he wanted to reach last night, and it was not only the privileges of the Member for Kilbride that I felt were breached and affected, but I felt that mine were as well. The thing was that I was not interested in speaking two or three or four times last night, but having said that the opportunity should have been provided for me to do so if I so desired, and I think that what happened last night, Mr. Speaker, as I said last night, I think it was incorrect and I think the member's privileges were breached and all hon. members' privileges were breached as well.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I will entertain one more by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one additional submission, I guess, to the debate on this point. First of all the Minister of Justice, the Government House Leader, talks about whether this is a point of privilege and whether Your Honour can rule it as a point of privilege. Your Honour cannot rule it as a point of privilege, in any event, he must rule whether or not the matter is of such importance as to allow the motion which the Member for Kilbride is prepared to put; it is not a question of whether the Speaker can rule whether it is a question of privilege.

But the one thing I want to draw to Your Honour's attention before Your Honour makes a ruling on this point of privilege is: the very first paragraph in Beauchesne's 6th Edition, paragraph one on page three, when it describes the principles of Canadian parliamentary law which are as follows:

To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner, orderly manner; to enable every member to express opinions within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that paragraph one, Beauchesne's 6th edition says it all, and we can see clearly what this government has been trying to do and that the point that the Member for Kilbride makes, is a point that all of us on this side of the House support very strongly. We have not had the opportunity to review Hansard to see exactly what transpired but clearly a ruling was made which goes against the precedents in this House, without question, and I think that is the matter we would like to have reviewed by His Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of privilege. The Chair has been very lenient in allowing members to voice their opinion on this rather important issue. As the Government House Leader said this was discussed at length last evening and the decision was made. Sometimes we have decisions made by Speakers which are sometimes good and sometimes they are bad, depending on the circumstances and depending on the rules. I just want to read to hon. members the point that I made last night, Page 97 of Beauchesne, Paragraph 321, referring to a point of order. Last night I mentioned to hon. members that a point of order must be raised immediately and in this case it was not and the same thing with the point of privilege today. I will read Paragraph 321: "A point of order against procedure must be raised promptly and before the question is passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place." Quite clearly this is the same thing we are dealing with here. I will say this to hon. members, the Standing Order related to closure is not a clear Standing Order and I ask hon. members to correct it. It need not be in this kind of situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is speaking and the Chair is not going to tolerate any interference. The Chair is not suppose to debate with hon. members. The Chair is giving its position on the point of privilege. The Standing Order is very unclear. Let me read for hon. members - this is from the annotated notes of the House of Commons - The rule has been the subject of much comment in the House of Commons because of its vagueness but there as here it has never been changed. To quote from the annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons, Speakers have been consistently hampered by the vagueness of the wording and have clearly stated that the subject is not without uncertainty and pitfalls. The difficulties which we and others have experienced in interpreting the closure provision suggests that a clarification of this and other rules which have presented difficulties might well be considered by the House of Assembly committee which reviews the rules and procedures of the House. In other instances as well the motion has been a little bit more precise than the one of yesterday and there is no question, in addressing the hon. Member for Kilbride, the motion was a broad one and in the future the Chair and the Table will address that matter in terms of motions for closure. For these and other reasons I would suggest that the hon. member has not established a prima facie case. The decision has been made and I am afraid we have to live with it.

MR. SIMMS: In keeping with the suggestion made by the Government House Leader we have no other alternative -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There are three people standing.

MR. SIMMS: We are challenging your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I am sorry.

Does the House sustain the ruling of the Chair?

All those in favour 'Aye.'

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against 'Nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

o o o

MR. SPEAKER: I revert back to wherever we were in this procedure.

I call the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand on a point of privilege, as a member of this House. The Chair had ruled that committee was not a reading. If a Committee of the Whole is not a reading and someone forced you into Committee of the Whole then how could I have deemed to be speaking on third reading if the Chair ruled it was not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is going to entertain no point of privilege and no points on the proceedings of last night. A decision has been made. It is not a different point of order and there is going to be no -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will give the hon. member a couple of minutes to get quickly to his point of privilege.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is on a point of privilege, Mr. Premier, so I have to listen to him.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it's a privilege of a member to have the opportunity to speak on each of the three stages of reading of a bill. That privilege was not afforded to members. It was not afforded on the basis that a Committee of the Whole did not constitute one of the readings. So if a Committee of the Whole didn't constitute one of the readings, how could speaking on a Committee be deemed to have spoken on third reading? I think that breached the privileges of the members of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, members are now trying to tie up the House by challenging Your Honour's ruling under the guise of claiming a point of privilege. Do they think the people of this Province are utterly stupid? It's no more a point of privilege than somebody claiming there's paper dropped on the floor. No more merit than that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the public of this Province have business to do that needs to be done by this House. Now if the hon. members opposite have no regard for the taxpayers' dollars that they are wasting by this charade day after day, night after night, as they try and tie up and prevent the conduct of government business, the members on this side do!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, if they want to make this an issue in the next election, we'll do that too!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government is not going to stand by and see the business of the public of this Province frustrated by frustrated politicians distraught at having been turfed out of office by a dissatisfied public, trying to frustrate the conduct of government business under the guise of raising points of privilege and other stupid arrangements.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to proceed to Orders of the Day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I just want to recess for one moment. I'll recognise the hon. member when I come back. I just want to recess for a moment.

Recess

[Joined in progress]

MR. MATTHEWS: To that point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The display that the Premier just put on here shows us what this is all about once again. Almost ordering the Speaker to get on to Orders of the Day. That is not going to happen in this House (Inaudible), I say to the Premier! It's not going to happen!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: That's what this is all about. We saw him stand in his place yesterday and deny that he made changes to legislation to take back Canada Pension from children going to school in this Province. We are saying that he did. We saw him deny it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) wait'll you get the (Inaudible)!

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, we do have the answer. That's what's happening here, Mr. Speaker. We're exposing the Premier and his government for what they're trying to do. Because we're here on December 22, he doesn't like it. Well, tough! You're going to be here longer, I say to the Premier. Who are the ones who want to get out of here? Who's talking about the date and how we want to get out, and how close it is to Christmas? The government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. MATTHEWS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Ferryland has made an excellent point. This all started last night. If members would just calm down and remember what I said last night and what the Leader of the Opposition has said again today. We set a precedent last night that was never set before in this House. A very dangerous precedent. I said then that if there were mistakes made, honest mistakes made, let's not be too big and too proud to say we made mistakes. Let's correct the wrong now before we further deteriorate the transactions and running of this Legislature.

That was my plea last night, it's my plea now. The Member for Kilbride is right, the Member for Ferryland is right. All our privileges were breached last night. We should redress it, we should go back to it, and let's try and get some - that's what's happened here, Mr. Speaker. There was legislation in front of this House that we needed to take time with. There's been a lot of things exposed and shown to the public of this Province. Things with serious implications for the public of this Province. We're going to continue to do it, I say to members opposite. We're going to continue - that's our responsibility, as the Premier would say, and we're going to continue to exercise it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to make it clear on the record that I also support the point of privilege raised by the Member for Ferryland. What the member has said is quite right that an interpretation such as is contained in the events would leave the House in this situation, Mr. Speaker, with the kind of motion that was presented, that that motion could be presented at second reading of a bill. And the result of that motion is that members would have only one opportunity to speak on the bill and that would be at second reading; that if that motion, in the words used by the Government House Leader, were presented at second reading and adopted by this House, there would then be only one opportunity to speak, at second reading for twenty minutes only. We would go through the Committee stage, go through third reading, have the bill passed, and each member would be given only one opportunity to speak. So, if you spoke at second reading, you couldn't speak during Committee, you couldn't speak during third reading, and that, Mr. Speaker, is the essence of the point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has heard enough submissions on this and we are going to just recess briefly.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As the Chair understands, the hon. member's point of privilege again, is revisiting the decision that was made by the Chair last evening. The hon. the Member for Ferryland's point of privilege was that he was denied speaking on third reading, and that is so. That was the effect, in this particular case, of the closure. He was permitted to speak on the bill and was denied speaking in third reading but, as I said, that was the effect of closure. Now, in terms of moving from the Committee to third reading, that is quite in order. I read for hon. members, again, the annotations that I read last evening. Referring to Standing Order 71 in the House of Commons, which is the same as our Standing Order 58, it says: Every Bill shall receive three several readings on different days, previously to being passed. On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a Bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day. And it says: A long-standing parliamentary procedure first established in the United Kingdom is reflected in this Standing Order, requiring that each Bill receive three readings, each to occur on different days. This Standing Order also makes provision for urgent and extraordinary occasions. When the House so decides a Bill may receive two or more readings - but we were not into this - on the same day or advance by two or more stages by agreement. The section refers only to reading stages; thus, for example, consideration in Committee of the Whole report stage and third reading may all take place on the same day. That is what happened yesterday and that is what the Chair ruled. The hon. member has established no point of privilege. The ruling was made and I am afraid that that was the decision and the Chair explained that quite clearly in its preamble. It made the decision that closure was invoked and the Bill was passed through all the stages.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With due respect to the decision, it was not the intent of my questioning there at all, that was not the point that I made. The point that I made, Mr. Speaker, was that I did not question going from Committee to third reading. If you speak in Committee, you are denied the right to speak in third reading, closure would have been invoked at 1:00 a.m. and this was only at 11:15 or 11:20 p.m. - there was still time to speak within the time limits of closure, and someone who had spoken in Committee of the Whole, was denied opportunity to speak in third reading, even though there was sufficient time under closure to debate that. The House adjourned at about 11:30 - 11:35 p.m. when it would only have been invoked closure at 1:00 in the morning. So, the privilege of the House, for speakers who wish to speak, to be recognized, that privilege was infringed upon here by the House, time went into it for discussion and that time was not given to the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair gets the gist of the hon. member's point of privilege. The Chair made the ruling that the motion was in order and that closure applied to all aspects of the Bill, so therefore the member's privileges were not breached - only inasmuch as the rules of closure applied - and I say that the hon. member has not established a prima facie case.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Premier some questions.

There have been public reports that Texaco has been asked to make a decision on its participation in Hibernia before Christmas. Mr. Epp, I think, is reported to have said that. I want to ask the Premier: Is he aware of that request having been made to Texaco; and does he know if Texaco has agreed to make a decision by that date?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Epp has been working diligently over the last few weeks to try to have this issue concluded as quickly as possible - certainly before the end of the year.

He made me aware of his request to Texaco. I do not know that he has gotten a satisfactory response yet from Texaco, but I can neither speak for Mr. Epp nor for Texaco. I can only tell the Leader of the Opposition and the House that I am aware that Mr. Epp has asked Texaco to make their decision in a timely fashion. He may, in fact, have given them a time within which to make it, although I was not there so I cannot speak to that; but I can say that, to the best of my knowledge, Texaco has not taken a definitive position on the issue yet.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

There is a report, this morning, the Premier probably heard, out of Toronto, I guess, that the Federal Government would be taking a 12.5 per cent ownership position in Hibernia.

Can I ask the Premier, assuming that he is up-to-date on what is going on: Is he aware - does he have any knowledge whether or not the Federal Government has decided to take a partnership position on Hibernia or if, in fact, it is contemplating such a move?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no right to speak for the Federal Government, and it would be inappropriate for me to attempt to comment on matters that are under consideration where the Federal Government have been sufficiently courteous to tell me what they have been considering, and I have been telling them what we have been considering. We are working together to try to find an acceptable resolution to this difficult problem.

I can say to my hon. friends opposite that the interests of the Province will be best served by allowing these events to unfold in the normal course. This kind of speculation - and I point out that what is in the newspaper this morning is pure speculation. I read what was in The Globe and Mail, this morning, and I say to all hon. members that that is pure speculation, so I am not prepared to comment on it.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier keeps making the same suggestion every time I ask questions on Hibernia: Be quiet now, don't ask about it, don't speculate about it - don't ask questions about it. In fact, the last time I asked questions several weeks ago he was going to give me a private briefing. I never heard anything from him afterwards. He offered to do that.

Let me ask him this. Speculation or no speculation, it is an important issue. Gulf Canada owned a 25 per cent share in the Hibernia project. If there were any truth to this at all and the Federal Government took up half of that 25 per cent, that leaves a further 12.5 per cent remaining. I want to ask him: In his opinion, if this were accurate - even though he says it is speculation; he doesn't deny it - who would likely take up the remaining 12.5 per cent share? Would it be Texaco? Would it be the other remaining three partners, or might it be the Provincial Government? Is the Province considering anything of this nature?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there are three remaining oil company partners. There is another oil company, whose name has been made public, that has a significant interest in an investment. That company is Texaco. There is another oil company that has expressed an interest in an investment, whose name has not been made public, and I have no intention of making it public. The two governments have an obvious interest in seeing the project continue - both the Federal Government and the Provincial Government. So, as to what is possible, I would say that any combination of those is possible.

It is possible that Texaco could buy it all. It is possible that Chevron could buy it all. It is possible Mobil could buy it all. It is possible that Mobil, Chevron and Petro-Canada could buy it between them. It is possible that Mobil, Chevron, Petro-Canada, Texaco and another oil company might buy it between them. It is possible that the two governments might buy it between them. It is possible that the two governments might buy a portion of it and the other companies might buy a portion of it. An infinite variety of things is possible. I am not going to stand here in the House and feed rumour and speculation by answering those kinds of questions today, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has done just exactly that by saying that all of those options are possible,. He has just fed the speculation. What kind of nonsense is he getting on with?

Let me ask him this question: Does the Premier, as the Premier of this Province, have assurances that Hibernia will continue even if they don't find a replacement partner? Does he have any assurances of that nature?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can't guarantee anybody anything. I can't guarantee what the boards of directors of the oil companies that are involved will decide, if and when they are faced with a decision on the issue. I can't guarantee what the Federal Government will decide, if and when the Federal Government, the Cabinet, is faced with a decision on the issue. I can't guarantee what the Cabinet of this Province will decide, if and when they are faced with a decision on the issue. I might have some measure of influence on the Cabinet in this Province, but I will probably have none on the federal Cabinet. So I can't give any assurances. The question is ludicrous. Of course, I can't give assurances, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary: Can I ask the Premier this, Mr. Speaker? Can the Premier tell the House, if the Province has been asked to make any concessions in order to keep the Hibernia project going? Can he tell us that, as leader of the government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, from time to time, the Province has been asked to do things to aid in the continuation of the project. I believe, without exception, on every occasion that we have been asked, we have agreed to do. Some of them were taken up, some of them were not. Some of them may have had a condition applied that would not be acceptable. So there have been a variety of things that have been looked at. But, Mr. Speaker, the Province has honoured all of the obligations and honoured all of the reasonable responsibilities of the Province in relation to the Hibernia matter.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, one final supplementary.

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

MR. SIMMS: One final supplementary to the Premier. This is a very important matter. We all know that this deadline is out there, established by Mr. Epp, or whomever, about a decision on this issue. Now the Provincial Government, in co-operation with the Federal Government has an agreement in place which guarantees 75 per cent of the expenditures on that project beyond the current deadline, I think, of December 31, 1992. I want to ask the Premier: Have the Provincial Government discussed by now - surely, they must have discussed it. and do they intend to carry on or extend that, if it is necessary? Have they made a decision in that regard?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. The indemnity period was not beyond December 1992, it was up to December 1992.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, the hon. member said beyond. Then he asked the question: Was it intended to extend it? That was the second part of his question. Was it intended to extend it? Now, Mr. Speaker, if, as and when the necessity to do that arises, the government will make a decision. The government has not made a decision on that issue yet and, to the best of my knowledge, neither has the Federal Government. At least, if they have, they haven't communicated it to me.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Premier. Last week, with respect to some questions from the Opposition House Leader dealing with the activities of the Auditor General versus the University, the Premier responded and made reference to the fact that back in 1988 the previous administration had given Peat Marwick, a private firm, the authority to audit the books of the University.

Now, the Premier neglected at that time to indicate the reason for that, which was that government had also given the Auditor General the authority to charge back to Crown corporations, agencies and other government-funded bodies, the cost of providing such audited services, and that a request had come forward from the University, in view of the cost of the Auditor General's services, and perhaps a timeliness that the audit might be performed at the University requested of government at the time to hire a private auditor, so that information would be timely and the cost indeed may even be less, so those are the circumstances surrounding that, Mr. Speaker. The Premier however, did not read the last part of the Minute of Council which says: the Auditor General retaining the right to inspect any and all accounts of Memorial University at his or her now, discretion, at no cost to the University. In other words, the private auditors had a right to do the audit but Cabinet at that time, the government at that time retained for the auditor general the right on his or her own discretion to audit those books. Would the Premier like to confirm that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, everything that the hon. member said is correct but I would go further. The former government went even further and I think they were quite fair and reasonable in their approach, not only was this done with a private auditing firm at the time and the auditor general was charging back, but in fact, tenders were called. It was as a result of a tender call. The auditor general amongst other private auditing firms bid on it and the auditor general was high, so the tender was awarded to Peat Marwick because they were the low bidder, so the government - I do not mean to in any way be critical of the former - I think I have said on a number of occasions, I endorse what they did.

I think they took the right course of action, I can only commend them for doing it. They called tenders, the auditor general bid, the lowest bidder got it and it happened to be Peat Marwick and they are a very reputable firm and can do a very competent audit. The Order in Council, if I recall correctly, reserved the right for the auditor general to inspect, the same as the Auditor General's Act does now, exactly the same way, so essentially what the hon. member said is correct except that I add that further note that they even called tenders at the time.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well therefore, I ask the Premier, having confirmed what he has just confirmed, therefore, will he not now agree that the auditor general has the absolute right to audit the books of the University at her discretion, and last week the Premier also referred to section 14 of the act, which says: if the auditor general is not satisfied, talking about the financial work of the private auditors, the Premier did not talk about section 17 of the act, which reserves for the auditor general the right to enter a premises and ask for documents from any Crown Corporation, group or agency, regardless. Will the Premier confirm, Mr. Speaker, that not only the DMC gives the auditor general the right, but section 17 of the act gives the auditor general the right to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, section 14, section 17, section 12, section 20, all of those together reserve for the auditor general the right to, in effect, supervise or satisfy herself that audits have been properly performed in respect of any entity that receives the vast majority of its funding from the Crown, and the majority of whose board of directors or board of management is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, so there is no question about the reservation of that right. But where an auditor has already been appointed there is no right to do the total audit unless, it is reserved for the auditor general in section 14, unless the auditor general is dissatisfied with the audit that has been done, then there is an unquestioned right. But the auditor general can go in and at the auditor general's expense, at no cost to the university, at the auditor general's expense, the auditor general can go in and satisfy herself as to the management systems, the accounting systems in place at the university and so on, and satisfy herself as to whether they are appropriate or inappropriate or not and I should say Mr. Speaker, that I do not think there is any difference between the auditor general and the university on this matter.

The biggest problem out of this whole thing, I should advise my hon. friend opposite, the university is quite concerned that the general description we have put in the Auditor General's Act that says: any entity that receives the majority of its funding from the public treasury and the majority of whose directors are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, is deemed to be an Agency of the Crown. Now, the university's problem is, they do not want to be seen to be an agency of the Crown because their sense of independence, academic freedom and so on appears to them to be challenged.

Now I understand that perception. It was never intended. One will see that the university is not mentioned in the Auditor General's Act, it is just that the definition is so very general that it incorporates any entity that gets the majority of its money from the Crown and the majority of whose board is nominated by the Crown. So we are looking for a solution to that. We don't want to do anything to impair the independence of the university, or the perception of the independence of the university or academic freedom of the university. We will do everything possible to ensure that that is maintained.

The university also understands and acknowledges the responsibility of the auditor general to satisfy herself that the $110 million of public funds voted by this House is managed properly and accounted for properly, and they have no real quarrel with respect to that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have worked out a resolution, and I hope within a very few days to be able to make a formal announcement on it.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Premier that we also are concerned about the autonomy of the university and the autonomy of the auditor general. We are also worried about the importance of accounting to the people of this Province for the expenditure of $130 million of taxpayers' money.

Let me ask the Premier this, Mr. Speaker: Is the Premier aware that the auditor general did not challenge any of the work of Peat Marwick; that Peat Marwick did what is known as a financial audit; that the auditor general has a right and a responsibility to do what is known as a comprehensive audit; that there is a distinct difference, in that the auditor general, as separate and distinct from the private auditor who would not necessarily do that, would look at conflict of interest legislation, would look at public tender acts, would look at wage restraint acts, and would look at local preference acts, these types of legislation that private auditors would not concern themselves with; and that the auditor general did not ask to do a financial audit, did not want to go over the work of Peat Marwick, but simply wanted to ensure to the House of Assembly, what she is bound to do, that these particular pieces of legislation were being followed? Is the Premier aware of that, Mr. Speaker. And in view of that, in view of the references we just provided of the power of the act and the provisions in the MC of 1988, will the Premier now direct the university to comply with the auditor general's request and the Public Accounts Committee's request?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is both wrong and right. He is wrong when he uses the word: The auditor general has the right to do a `comprehensive' audit. That is incorrect. She has the right to do a compliance audit to ensure full compliance with legislative and policy requirements, compliance, for example, with The Wage Restraint Act, compliance with other statutory provisions and so on.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the meeting we held a few days ago, with the auditor general, the auditor general disclosed to my colleagues and I, who met with the auditor general and the president of the University, that that is what she intended. I have no problem with that. She has a perfect right and responsibility to do that. Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be surprised but that, as we speak, she is in the university now doing just that. Because that is the way the meeting was left, that she would be in the process of doing it. So I have no problem with that.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Mount Pearl, on a supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: One very brief supplementary. Would the Premier tell us now, in response to the special report from the Public Accounts Committee, is he prepared to ask the House of Assembly, which is his responsibility, not to intervene himself, is he, as Leader of the government, prepared to ask the House of Assembly to direct the university to appear before the Public Accounts Committee?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to ask the university, but I am prepared to make sure that the Minister of Education sits before the Public Accounts Committee and responds to all of the questions of the Public Accounts Committee as to exactly what the university did. Now that is what the former members insisted on when they sat on this side of the House. That is what the current Minister of Finance -

MR. WINDSOR: I am talking about the right under this act (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: He wanted an answer. He may not like my answer, but at least hear it, and he can tell the world if he thinks it is wrong after. But he will be no brighter if he doesn't hear it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is also exactly what the Minister of Finance agreed on, with the hon. gentleman who is asking the question, when he was in a position to decide on it, and when he insisted that the responsibility of the university was to appear with and through the Minister of Education, who speaks for the university and whose department seeks the vote of this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the precise way it has been done in the past without exception and that is the way we intend to do it in the future. And, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, if it is necessary to put that beyond question so as to make sure that nobody has any doubts about the independence of the university and the academic freedom of the university, we are quite prepared to bring legislation before this House to make such a provision abundantly clear. Because that has been the practice of forty years and it is exactly what the hon. member, who is now shouting with such righteous indignation, who is now displaying this great righteous indignation, that is precisely the position he and his colleague, the present Leader of the Opposition, that is exactly the position they maintained for a whole seventeen years, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Social Services. I have a couple of questions arising out of the fire that destroyed the Harvey Road social services building and offices last night. My first concern relates to the destruction of records. I know the Minister of Justice indicated that the vault remains but I wonder if the minister can tell us whether he has received a briefing from his officials to find out what records might have been destroyed. I know there is already concern about very important records regarding adoptions in this Province that may have been contained at Harvey Road. Many people are concerned that their quest for information about their natural parents and other matters in relation to their adoption may have been lost. Can the minister advise whether he has received as of yet a briefing from his officials on what records may have been kept at social services that were not in the vault or some indication as to what may be the loss in terms of public records of a very sensitive and important nature?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity as well to commend my staff, many of whom were there the entire night working with this very bad situation, with this terrible fire. The records he speaks of are contained in a vault that we have not yet gained access to. As soon as we get the go-ahead from the fire department we will be able to access the vault. We are hoping that the records have not been affected by the fire or the smoke. We had the staff of the archives in this morning who are experts in this matter and they assure us that there is a good chance that we may retrieve most of the records, child welfare records, adoption records, and so on. They are very valuable to us. I should be able to report better to the House in the next couple of days. As soon as we gain access to the vault we will be better able to report on the condition of the records.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know if all records would have been kept in the vault. I know there are quite a lot of current matters that are outstanding, recipients of social services or those who are seeking social assistance at the current time and may well be very dependent on the state of these records. Is the minister taking any measures to ensure, perhaps by relaxing certain rules to ensure that adequate social assistance, particularly short-term and emergency assistance, can be provided by his departmental officials over the next few days and during this Christmas season?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, there is quite a misunderstanding. As a matter of fact last evening we took pains, my officials and I, to explain to many of the members of the media that the building that was destroyed by fire is not a social services building anymore. We did not have any staff in that building. They have been moved to either Anderson Avenue or one of the other two offices in the city, one at Mount Pearl and one at Regatta Ford. We had no records there in the context of social assistance. The records that are contained in the vault are child welfare and adoption records which are important to us, but in terms of providing assistance to social services recipients per se, Mr. Speaker, the records necessary for that and the files we use are in the other three offices in the city.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a final supplementary to the minister these are matters that many are concerned about, Mr. Speaker. I know that media reports indicate that approximately 100 people have been left homeless by the events last night, and I know there were approximately 1000 people evacuated who probably may well be able to return to their homes today or later on. Has his department played a role, or what role has his department played in trying to provide emergency assistance to ensure that these individuals, particularly at this time of the year, are not going to go without and can have some adequate Christmas despite the tragedy that occurred?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, last evening we had staff at the community college, Cabot College in the area, there throughout the evening. About twenty or twenty-five people were affected, who were assisted throughout the night. We understand there are some 200 or 300 more people dispersed throughout the City with family and friends, and we are trying to get a handle on the situation of those people right now as to whether they need our assistance by way of food, clothing, or shelter.

I had a report, actually, just before I came over here, from the police department, giving me the numbers; but I have asked for a further breakdown as to where those people are and whether or not our assistance is needed or whether they would be staying on with friends until they can return to their homes.

I should again be able to report further on that when I get a breakdown from my officials.

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

MR. HARRIS: I take it the minister is saying that people in need of assistance from his department are welcome to call and will be looked after within the minister's guidelines, and perhaps some special guidelines for this tragedy. Is that what the minister is saying?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are not in a normal social services assistance situation. This is an emergency, and whatever is necessary will be done out of the norm. We do not follow the regular rules and regulations. Certainly, as it is an emergency, a disaster in many cases, we will respond quickly; and as soon as I have a detailed report to me of the situation of these families that are affected, that are displaced from their homes, we will respond accordingly with accommodation or food or clothing or whatever is necessary.

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

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

Just a follow-up to the questions to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Social Services.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I am sorry - the Minister of Social Services. I missed his first answer, so he might have answered this, but: Is there an emergency response team set up with a headquarters and a special number that people can call if they are in trouble, over the next day or so, because of that fire? Is there one number or one contact person that they might contact?

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

MR. HOGAN: Who are you asking?

MR. GULLAGE: I was not sure, Mr. Speaker - he said Municipal Affairs.

Yes, there is a team in place. It is comprised of people from emergency measures; obviously from the fire commissioner's office; the Red Cross is involved, and my own staff; so that team goes into effect the moment a disaster like this occurs.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Social Services?

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, Municipal Affairs this time.

Mr. Speaker, did the minister get a briefing today from the fire commissioner's office on the reported problems that the fire fighters had last night in maintaining a proper water pressure in that higher levels area of town? It is reported that they had very much trouble keeping the water pressure, and the city engineer's department is reported to have told them that if they increased the water pressure they would collapse all of the pipes in the area - water mains in the area.

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

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I have had no such report. As I understand it, the fire commissioner officials and others were on the scene at the Avalon Community College. That is where, I guess, the bulk of the emergency response people are taking place out of now. They will establish a desk and further information, I guess, or any other reports will be forthcoming over the next hours, I guess.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Fisheries.

Some time ago, in response to an application for a processing licence, the minister stated that there was a freeze on, and due to the moratorium there was an assessment being done upon licenses to the processing sector. I wonder if the assessment has been completed? What status would the licence, presently held in Trepassey, be in at present?

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

MR. CARTER: No, Mr. Speaker, the assessment has not been completed and the status of the Trepassey licenses, along the lines that I stated to the mayor of Trepassey some two weeks ago I guess, that the plant is not operating and the licence is held in abeyance until this analysis is completed.

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

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. In making the assessment is the minister going to be conscious of history and geography and the population base rather than that a plant is closed, and a plant closed, remains closed philosophy?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, that is the sort of thing that will be decided later but certainly the fact that Trepassey has had a long history in the fish processing business, one of the oldest plants I suppose on the Island, totally dependent on the fishery for its existence, that will certainly be a very important consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following motion:

WHEREAS school bus transportation is provided by the provincial government through the Department of Education to students who live a long distance from their school at no direct cost to students or their parents;

AND WHEREAS in the City of St. John's where the St. John's Transportation Commission provides a bus service, school buses paid for by the Department of Education may not operate, and students or their parents must directly pay the total cost of school bus transportation;

AND WHEREAS this situation creates economic hardship to many families and results in loss of school time, lack of safety and other problems for students whose parents cannot afford to pay bus fares;

AND WHEREAS this situation is unfair and results in inequality of treatment and discrimination against St. John's students and their families;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly go on record as supporting equality of treatment of all school students and their families regarding school bus transportation;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the government be directed to provide school bus transportation to students within the City of St. John's on the same basis as provided throughout the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked me the following question: "I want to ask the Premier, is he aware that the Workers' Compensation Commission has already written disabled workers in the Province, telling them that as soon as this legislation is passed, Workers' Compensation will deduct the full amount of dependents' benefits - not benefits that the workers themselves will receive, but benefits that the dependents of disabled workers will receive from Canada Pension? Is he aware of that?"

I told him no, I didn't think that was the situation or that they were doing anything improper, but that I would check and find out. He persisted and insisted that: "It is one thing to take away disability pensions that injured workers receive from Canada Pension, but it is quite another to rob the disabled workers' children of the benefits they are going to receive from Canada Pension. That is the difference here. I want to ask the Premier: is he aware that that is occurring and about to occur? If so, how can his government justify robbing children of their own benefits, not the workers?"

I once again told him I would undertake to find out. But he persisted, and then he got to the point of saying: "...this is outright thievery." Now, I remind hon. members of his precise words. "...This is outright thievery on the part of the government led by the Premier of this Province, that's what is happening here with this legislation, outright thievery, and the Premier doesn't have the guts to stand up and face the people of the Province and tell them that."

He goes on to say: he always blames it on somebody else. "Why does he not say here in the House today, that he will check into this; if the allegations are accurate, that this legislation is taking away this money from dependents, that he will make sure the legislation does not pass without the provision being brought in?"

I'm happy to tell the House that I've checked on it, and the hon. member's proposition is totally and completely inaccurate. There exists under the present statute, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Oh yes. I know the letter was sent. His allegations are inaccurate. I know the letter was sent! I also know what the letter said, I also know it's false, I also know the Workers' Compensation Commission has told us they understand it to have been wrong and they will correct it. Now here, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: "Oh, oh!" Here's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) they want the answers, Mr. Speaker, here are the answers. The existing legislation has this clause in it: a benefit relative to an injury that a worker is entitled to receive under the Canada Pension Plan may be considered as wages that the worker is capable of earning in calculating the compensation to be paid by the Commission for loss of earning capacity.

"May be considered." On March 22, 1991, the directors of the Workers' Compensation Board decided that acting under that they would offset Canada Pension Plan benefits. They made the decision. I'm happy to table in the House today, if I can find it, a press release dated May 2, 1991, announcing, Mr. Speaker, here it is - this is a workers compensation press release announcing they are proposing to offset primary and secondary CPP benefits against wage loss, dependency benefits and payments to workers who are 100 per cent functionally impaired. In addition, CPP offsets will be applied against net earnings rather than gross earnings.

That was the position announced by the commission pursuant to the legislation as it now exists. Then, Mr. Speaker, in July of 1992, the directors met again and decided that they would not make it retroactive, that it would come into effect on January 1st, 1993. All of that was done, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the decisions of the board under the existing legislation. Then, Mr. Speaker, the board not only made a decision, they acknowledged that they could not do otherwise. They acknowledged that they could not pay exempt CPP -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Listen, and the hon. members may learn something.

The board also, Mr. Speaker, acknowledged that CPP benefits paid directly to children between 18 and 25 years old will not be offset. Why, Mr. Speaker?.... because there is no legislative authority to do so and, Mr. Speaker, the new legislation will not give them legislative authority to do so. The new legislation does one thing, it changes the 'may' to 'shall' and that was done at the commissions request, Mr. Speaker, and on the recommendation of the Board of Review.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Torngat, if he would listen to something he would end up with something more between his ears than a blank spot, if he would just listen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the legislation was requested specifically by the commission and recommended by the review committee to make sure that everybody was treated equally. Instead of it being 'may' and permissive, once the board made their decision, just listen, 'shall', so we are substituting 'may' for 'shall'. The board having made their decision in March of 1991 announced it publicly in May of 1991 and set the date for it to come into effect. In July of 1992, they asked us and the review committee recommended that it be changed from 'may' to 'shall'. It does not enable them to offset benefits paid to students who are receiving it in their own right as the Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday. So, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that as I said yesterday, he had it all bottom up.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am not letting the Premier get away with misleading this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, I will not do it. I will not sit here and listen to it. Mr. Speaker, the letter that was written to the recipients, actually stated in the letter in the second paragraph: under the proposed legislation currently before the House of Assembly, Workers Compensation Commission will also be required to offset Canada Pension Plan secondary benefits against workers compensation benefits. Mr. Speaker, that was the interpretation that Workers Compensation had on the legislation until the hon. Leader of the Opposition brought it up and Mr. Speaker, when it was brought to their attention, hopefully they will send out corrected letters -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Hopefully they will send out corrected letters, Mr. Speaker. The letter, Mr. Speaker, says 92 12 09 so I guess that is the 9th of December 1992, Mr. Speaker, that is a week ago -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just got finished telling the House the commission sent the letter out, that was wrong, and the Leader of the Opposition was wrong in what he said and what I said very clearly, just read Hansard yesterday, Mr. Speaker, was: if the commission has done something incorrect or inappropriate we will see that they take steps to correct it. Now the minister advises me this morning, they expressed their apologies to the House and to everybody concerned for making a totally incorrect statement and presumably they will take corrective measures but Mr. Speaker, the allegation of the Leader of the Opposition about thievery from people is offensive and I request that he apologize, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is ruling on the point of order that the hon. member raised. Obviously there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that time when the Premier was speaking, prior to the point of order, he made reference to the Member for Torngat Mountains saying that if he would listen he would have more between his ears than a rattle box, I think were his words.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that for a man who comes into this Legislature and always preaches decorum going around this Province, he has brought a new level to the decorum, a new low to the decorum of this House by making such statements. Now, the Premier is the man who preaches that in this House, no one else, but the Premier and, Your Honour, you sat there and listened to the Premier as we all did, making this statement. I think it is unbecoming for a man of the Premier's stature, unbecoming for the Premier of this Province to make such a statement, and I would suggest that he probably consider withdrawing it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of merit in what the hon. member says, a lot of merit in what he says, but I just point out to Your Honour, you sat here and you heard the constant babbling that you would only expect to come from somebody who didn't know what he was doing, who had no respect for the House or other members.

Now, Mr. Speaker, out of exasperation I asked the hon. member to sit back and listen. Now the Member for Burin - Placentia West is quite correct. This is not appropriate to the decorum of the House, having to make these kinds of comment but I sat here, I tried not to shout, I have in the end, torn my throat apart trying to shout to be heard because a variety of members, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains, in particular, but as often as not, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, are rattling on, on a constant basis in an effort to prevent anybody else from being heard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member makes a point and the Premier makes a point, and hon. members should not be making provocative statements to each other.

MR. WARREN: He doesn't have the guts to (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We were into Answers to Questions for which Notice has been given.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on behalf of 1,332 petitioners who petitioned the government concerning workers' compensation benefits. These are in addition to the some 7,600 that I presented yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, these current petitioners and petitions were not available to me at the time, but these petitioners also say that, they verily believe that the cuts and benefits to injured workers will cause undue economic hardship to workers and their families, and believe that cuts to injured workers is an attempt to blame the victim for their injuries. We therefore demand that the Provincial Government immediately reject all recommendations by the Workers' Compensation Statutory Review Committee for cuts in benefits to injured workers.

Now, yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when I rose to speak on behalf of these petitioners and express the concerns that these petitioners raised, the minister, in reply, made a number of remarks which I find offensive to these petitioners and to workers in general and injured workers, in particular. He suggested that the petitioners are being misled by Opposition members indicating that their benefits were being cut and he suggested that, in fact, the benefits of injured workers were not being cut.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that kind of verbal sleight of hand really doesn't cut any ice with the workers of this Province, who recognize full well that the government, through its actions in this legislation, are setting up a regime which is going to deprive injured workers of the kinds of benefits they receive under the system, that they received before this and that they receive currently. We also see the government's insistence, that any attempts by workers to replace their income that is going to be clawed back and cut by this government, any such attempts are going to be made illegal when they are based on an agreement between an employer and an employee, such as occur in many collective agreements that are negotiated freely and fairly in this Province, and often at the expense of other benefits that workers have given up, in order to get those benefits for injured workers. Those types of provisions are being made illegal.

Now, we have also the issue that has been raised over the last couple of days on what the Workers' Compensation Commission is doing with respect to Canada Pension benefits. Now, Mr. Speaker, despite the correction made in the policy as a result of this matter being raised in this hon. House, I think there is also cold comfort for workers in the words of the Premier today, because what has happened - what this incident is indicative of, is the mentality that this government has forced upon the Workers' Compensation Commission. Even though, without authority, they have adopted the claw back mentality that this government has set the standard for in its legislation on workers' compensation; in its policy directives and refusal to go along with the Government of Canada, and refusal to support programs of the Government of Canada for fishery workers; their refusal to support early retirement programs for workers; their attempts to insist on claw back provisions in federal government support payments to fishermen.

This is a claw back mentality that obviously the Workers' Compensation Commission has caught on to, because the standard and the tone is being set by this government; and injured workers, and workers in general, who may never, ever, have made a claim to Workers' Compensation, and may never make a claim to Workers' Compensation, are also suffering from the fear that their income security will be threatened because this government has adopted policies that are detrimental to injured workers. They are detrimental to a proper incentive for workers to ensure work place health and safety; and they are detrimental, obviously, to the families of injured workers, on very flimsy kinds of economic theory - the theory being that if you penalize everybody there may be a few people who will go back to work a little earlier. That seems to be the theoretical basis on refusing to allow top ups. The theoretical basis on refusing to allow a full compensation for workers is wrong, and it should not be allowed to proceed. There is still time for this House to reject these changes and to reject this legislation, and I urge them to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I would like to stand in my place in this Assembly today and support the 1,332 workers who have signed this petition presented by the Member for St. John's East.

If this debate - we got lectured in this House of Assembly a couple of times now in the last few days about dragging out the debate and taking too much time of this House of Assembly and wasting the taxpayers' money. We have been blamed for that over the last little while, and had we not done that, had we not been able to take the time of the House to properly scrutinize the legislation that is going through the House of Assembly, we would not have been able to present petitions such as were presented here today. We would not have been able to correct an injustice that was caused by the legislation and overruled by the Premier yesterday when the Leader of the Opposition caught the government in a scam to steal from the students of this Province.

Had it not been raised in this House of Assembly, Workers' Compensation would have continued to take away the money from the students - $154 every two weeks, I believe it is, or is it every week?

MR. SIMMS: One hundred and fifty-four every month.

MR. R. AYLWARD: One hundred and fifty-four dollars every month they would have deducted from the parents, or from the mothers and injured workers of this Province who are responsible for those dependent children over eighteen years of age.

Had not this debate continued, and had not we raised some points, and had not we gotten some minimal coverage of the debate in the media - very minimal I might say - there is not much coverage because there are other things of interest at this time of year. Most people are interested in their Christmas gifts and their Christmas shopping and other big news items like the fire last night, so you will not get much coverage of what is happening in this House of Assembly, which is all the more reason why we should adjourn today and come back in January - January 2nd or 3rd - and get on with the business of this Province and allow people to try to understand the legislation we are putting through this House.

If we went to the committee system with the legislation, as we should be doing in this House of Assembly, 1,332 people would not need to sign a petition to come in here. They could get a representative and go to the committee and make their presentations.

Workers' Compensation would not have been able to try to steal the money from the students - steal $154 a month Canada Pension benefit - from the students who get that for educational purposes in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from a constituent of mine, who phoned the Premier's office yesterday and was told by Paul Sparkes, I believe, was the name of the person - was told by a person from the Premier's office, that this had nothing to do with the Premier, absolutely nothing to do with the Premier. They were just going to take your money and it was all the fault of Workers' Compensation, until he read out the letter to him where Workers' Compensation said, 'Under the proposed legislation currently before the House of Assembly, the Workers' Compensation Commission will also be required' - not 'may' or 'shall', as we were told here today, they will 'be required to offset Canada Pension Plan secondary benefits against your workers' compensation benefits.' Now, that is a clear statement. I will have this person call Workers' Compensation today and when we are here for Question Period tomorrow we will know if Workers' Compensation is going to do exactly what the Premier said today. I will know in a couple of hours, when that person gets through to someone down at Workers' Compensation, whether they are going to withdraw this letter and whether they are going to straighten out the mess that has been created by this government, straighten out the thievery that this government tried to pull on the students and injured workers of this Province, to try to straighten out the sham and the con-job that this government is doing not only with this legislation but with much other legislation. The Premier should stand in this Legislature and apologize for the stress and strain he has caused the injured workers of this Province by having them threatened. The person who got this letter on December 9 was planning to sell his home.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with mixed feelings that I rise to address the petition because I do recognize how serious the petitioners were. The two speakers today in support of the petition, the presenter for St. John's East and the hon. the Member for Kilbride, again demonstrate that they are only interested in politics and not at all interested in the serious petitioners that signed the document because they have some concerns and they wanted them expressed. Both members again today showed a total insincerity.

Again, we have the Member for St. John's East trying to suggest that I said something yesterday which I absolutely did not say and misrepresenting the words when he knows the difference. I find that a little bit disturbing and distressing and I do not think it serves the petitioners at all well.

What we said yesterday and what we said again today is that we are making the changes - and we have explained this to every person in Newfoundland and Labrador - we are making the changes so that the benefits for injured workers will not be reduced to zero. If we do not make these changes, that is the ultimate result, and everybody in this Legislature understands that. But even when they know the facts they still present them as being something different.

What the hon. the Member for Kilbride gets on with, Mr. Speaker, is nothing short of being absolutely shameful and disgraceful from the point of view that even when he is presented with the facts, he still stands to represent an exact opposite view, when he knows full well that it is completely different from what he is saying.

It is unfortunate, because when I spoke with the acting CEO this morning at Workers' Compensation, and last night, and yesterday afternoon, his only question was: Why wouldn't the Leader of the Opposition, who brought this to the floor of the Legislature - if he really wanted the answers, why wouldn't he call me instead of running off with something at the House of Assembly? I reminded him - I said, I know you have not been in your job very long but you have to understand, in dealing with those kinds of politicians, they were not interested in the answer, they were not interested in information, they were only interested in sensationalizing something so that they could make the news, politicking.

The two members today, in presenting this petition, I think, shortchanged the petitioners by getting on with the same kind of tripe, even when they had been given the facts. We will go through the facts one more time, Mr. Speaker, because it is clear that the CEO has apologized on behalf of the Commission because the board of directors didn't see the letter. That is not what board of directors do. They set policy, they took the decisions and the staff was left to write the letters. The letters are exactly as the hon. member pointed out. That is exactly what the letters say, and the CEO apologies because in reflecting on the chain of events, they recognize they have attributed something to a government action which is absolutely false and which was a decision taken by the board.

Now, with that explained here in the Legislature today, the hon. member still gets on with a diatribe, refusing to acknowledge that he has been given the facts, that the decision was made by the board initially in March of 1991, was made public in May of 1991. The details of it were re-affirmed in July of 1992. And they made a decision, without any reference to any change in the legislation, because it wasn't required for them to make their decision, that it would become effective January 1, 1993. It was clear. The CEO pointed out that had the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or any other member in this Legislature called, they would have been able to clarify for them that even though the letter didn't say so, there was no intention of dealing with people eighteen years of age and over for offset purposes, it was only intended to deal with dependant benefits up to the age of eighteen.

That was why they apologised - because they didn't make that clear in their letter. They know that they misrepresented, through a misunderstanding on their part, and portrayed a decision of the board as if it was a decision of the government. They sincerely apologise to everybody in this Legislature, to the people of Newfoundland, and to the 396 people who received the letters. They have assured us today that they will write a new letter, Mr. Speaker, to the 396 people, pointing out clearly that it was a decision of the board of directors and that there was no intention for that decision to affect people eighteen years of age and over, that, in fact, it will take place on January 1, with or without any reference to legislative change occurring in Bill 48 in this Legislature.

So they apologised. They know they made a mistake. They are going to correct it. They just feel very badly that again, hon. members here wanted to politic with the issue rather than call the Commission and get the facts and address it. Instead of that we get it represented in the House as thievery and robbery attributed to the government. That is the kind of mudslinging and muckraking that the members opposite consistently get themselves involved with. They do not want to deal with facts, Mr. Speaker, even when the facts are clearly given.

The facts have been clearly given in this Legislature today by the Premier, by myself now, as the minister with responsibility, and they are continuing to misrepresent it every single time they get an opportunity.

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

The hon. the minister's time has elapsed.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before I ask the House to move into Committee - I haven't had a chance to speak to my hon. friend because I understood he wanted to get on in Question Period. I think it appropriate that I move the motion that the House not rise at 5:00 p.m. Let me say, I have no desire to stay here beyond whatever time the House wants, but we have a legislative agenda which must be addressed and, Sir, the government intend to ask the House to address it. That being so, I make the motion, Sir.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, really, what the Government House Leader is saying, then, is that we won't have a supper break tonight. Is that what he's saying? Is that really what you are telling us to prepare for?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) again, or -

MR. ROBERTS: No, what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I am not certain that the motion can be moved in Committee. Therefore I am going to move it when Your Honour is in the Chair. I would then suggest, once we get the debate under way in here, and things are moving at whatever speed and in whatever direction they are moving, that my hon. friend and I might take a few moments behind the Speaker's Chair and see if we can compare notes.

I am simply leaving the options open. I am largely, to be quite candid, in the hands of the Opposition. If they choose to dig in, they have every right within the rules to do it, and I will respect that and operate within the rules, but I must reserve the options over here. My hope, indeed, would be either that we would - it is 3:50 p.m. now and we are only now on Orders of the Day. And I don't quarrel - there will be no objection from me.

If hon. gentlemen opposite, and the hon. lady opposite, wish to carry on the debate we will give them the opportunity to do it. I have no quarrel with that. But we are going to have to address this Order Paper. I am putting a motion down, I say again to my hon. friend, so that when he and I consult, at least the options are available to us. We will try to come to an agreement. I can speak for those on this side. If he is in a position where he is able to make commitments for those on his side, we ought to be able to move ahead. If he isn't able to make commitments -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry? Well, then, that's fine, I will sit down and let him. Mr. Speaker, I am sure, will allow us to do it. Please carry on.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The only point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that I think there are some thirty pieces of legislation here. It is only in one person's judgement whether or not we have made enough progress to take a supper break and that is in the Government House Leader's - I mean we can do what we like between now and 5:00 p.m. and in his opinion then, if we have not made enough progress we go straight through. So I think we may as well decide now that we are going straight through and have it over with because that is what we are going to end up doing regardless of what happens between now and 5:00 p.m., that is my opinion. I would prefer that we stopped at 5:00 p.m. and came at 7:00 p.m. and let the chips fall as they may but let us not say that we are going to judge where we are at 7:00 p.m. because I know what is going to happen at 7:00 p.m. We will not have made enough progress looking at what is left on this order paper, so then we are here all night anyway so we may as well accept that now and make plans accordingly, those who want to go and get a bit of supper go and those who want to stay, stay and whatever. Stop trying to play games with one another I say to the Government House Leader because that is all we are doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, once again we seem to be in a situation where the Government House Leader seems to want to proceed by fiat of the government majority and seeks co-operation after the fact. The normal procedure in this House has been that Government House Leaders have indicated by agreement and consultation as to what is expected, a reasonable course of business, reasonable hours and they received co-operation. This minister, Mr. Speaker, is intending apparently to impose co-operation, or try to impose co-operation by him making up his mind as he goes along of what he wants and what he does not want. Well if that is the way it has to be, Mr. Speaker, I guess that is the way it has to be but I would certainly have preferred to have a supper break so that we could have normal hours of operation and not have the kind of farce that we had last week where the government was bringing important legislation in at twenty minutes to five in the morning. If that is the way the Government House Leader intends to operate the House then I guess we have to put up with it.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. The hon. gentleman for St. John's East is obviously not listening to what I am saying or I am not saying it sufficiently clearly. I am putting the motion down now, Mr. Speaker, simply because when the House goes into committee, in my understanding of the rules which may very well not be complete, but in my understanding of the rules, Mr. Speaker, I may not be able to make the motion in committee therefore I will have to go through all of the business of rising the committee and so forth. I will then speak with my hon. friend for Grand Bank and then subsequently to my hon. friend for St. John's East to see if we could arrive at an accommodation.

The problem is, as my hon. friend will acknowledge, that unless both sides are able to keep their undertakings and their only undertakings behind the Chair, they are not enforceable in the House, unless both sides can keep them there is no point going there and in that case, given the experience I have had in this House of two-and-a-half hours on a simple one clause Bill with inane speeches being repeated endlessly, than I must leave the options open so that at the end of the day the government are able to bring forward their program and submit it to the judgement of the House. Perhaps we could put the motion, Mr. Speaker, if it passes we will carry on.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, it is now seven minutes to four, we are talking about whether or not the Government House Leader is going to move that we have a supper break in an hour and seven minutes, at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Speaker, it is the government and the Government House Leader that has us here two days before Christmas with thirty-two pieces of legislation on the Order Paper, many of which were only printed and distributed in the last few days. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is the government that has the House sitting so close to Christmas with so much outstanding business. Now the government, the Government House Leader and the Premier have two choices; they can keep the House in overdrive, debating in marathon stretches through the night leading up to Christmas, to try to ram through their business, their tax break to Fortis, their new municipal consumption tax and their other measures or they can adjourn now, have a civilized break for Christmas, allow members and more importantly staff of the House to go home and be with their families for Christmas, reconvene the House early in the new year and then proceed with the outstanding business in a sensible way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are not going to allow debating to go on about the procedure. These are things normally done behind the curtain and we cannot allow to have debate here when there is no provision for it. You heard the motion, all those in favour of the motion please say 'aye'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion 'nay'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Could we rise and go into committee please, Sir?

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I had a word with the Clerk but let me put on the record that I will ask the Committee to address the bills in the order in which they are on the Order Paper. We'll just move along and see how we get along with them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 1, Committee of the Whole on a Bill, "An Act Respecting The Licensing And Inspection Of Health And Social Agencies," Bill 46.

CLERK (Noel): Clause 1.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Chairperson. I'd certainly like to have a few words on this Bill, not only because of what's in it but perhaps because of what's not in it. It's a rather vague bill in a number of ways.

It talks about An Act Respecting The Licensing And Inspection Of Health And Social Agencies, and I'm presuming from some of the definitions that we're talking about most of the health and social agencies, from the small home where three or four people are staying, through the boarding homes, and according to definitions here talking about nursing homes. I presume we're talking about nursing homes also. So it's sort of an all-encompassing bill.

The government over the last few years has done quite a job on the health care in this Province, and we're all well aware of the concerns being faced by the various boards and agencies as they try to make sure that they can balance their budget and yet provide a reasonable level of health care to the residents they serve.

It's getting harder and harder to do that. We wonder sometimes if government in its wisdom, and in the type of facilities they are setting up around the Province, are getting the best bang for their buck. When we look at the cost to look after the residents of nursing homes, people who are in hospital for extended care and so on, and perhaps even when we look at the cost of looking after people in their own homes, which is supposed to be the ideal way, a number of us have concerns as to whether or not there are not better ways of making sure that our people are looked after, and that the whole thing costs the Province a lot less.

One of the best bargains we have in health care in this Province is the home for special care. What we used to call the private nursing home, now called boarding homes or homes for special care. If figures haven't changed very much over the last two or three years, and I don't think they have, then it costs this government approximately $2,000 a year per person in those homes. That's roughly $200 a month to subsidize people who are in the private boarding homes or the homes for special care. These homes are among the best you will find anywhere. We have several in Newfoundland that have an extremely high reputation as to the level of care - I won't say health care - but care that they provide the residents who are there.

Now in our Province if we looked at the people who require some kind of health care, whether it be very minimal - health care that can be administered in the home without any professional help; health care that can be provided in the private boarding homes - or health care, of course, that could be provided only in nursing homes and in hospitals.

If we looked at the total number of people requiring care, and could divide them up and place them realistically as to the level of care and the agencies in which they could receive this care then, I think, Mr. Chairman, the Province could save a tremendous amount of money. However, it is because of the amount of placements, I guess, that have been made over the years - we still hear people talking about people who are in nursing homes, where you are supposed to need Level III care, who walk in and out daily - who could easily be placed in their own home or in homes for special care.

We hear about people who are in hospital for prolonged time, taking up hospital beds simply because there is no other place to put them. We hear about private entrepreneurs who want to start private boarding homes, or homes for special care, in areas of the Province where there are none, who are being told: I am sorry, we do not need any more of these homes because we have too many already and we have x-number of beds that are not taken up.

Now that is changing, I understand, and rightly so, because the decision was being based upon the number of homes, the number of empty beds, and people saying: Well how can we create more homes when we have empty beds? What they were forgetting is the location of the empty bed. I notice the Minister of Health nodding his head, so I think he agrees with me on this - the location of the homes, number one; the type of homes and how good they were; and also the fact that people who lived in geographic areas of the Province where they had neither home near their place, were expected to send their sick relatives, friends, or parents - whatever the case might be - for hundreds of miles sometimes just because somebody in another area of the Province had a vacant bed.

That is unacceptable, and with proper identification and good field surveys - now I will say a little bit more about this as the evening progresses, when I get back to this the second, third, or fourth time - we will find that in many parts of the Province we do not have homes to take care of our elderly, yet we have a lineup of people trying to find a place to go. Many of them are then put in hospitals or nursing homes, taking up beds that they really do not need, but simply because there is not a more suitable level of care provided for them.

One of the ideal -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Mr. Chairman, it is extremely hard to speak above the noise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member has requested silence.

MR. HEARN: One aim, I guess, of the department over the last few years, is to try to keep as many people in their own homes as possible. This is a laudable decision where it is possible and practical, but somewhere along the line I think lines have to be drawn there also. They say: Oh, it is extremely cheap if people stay in their own home and we have a nurse drop in every now and then and check. That is possible if we have a good nursing service throughout the Province.

An experiment that they started recently on the southern shore is the type that certainly could work in many areas of the Province, where instead of having a doctor run up his medicare bills by trying to cover all bases - serving his clinic and trying to cover every nook and cranny in his geographic area - we have a number of nurses, assisted by nursing assistants and so on, who look after the needs - the minor needs - of a lot of people who need just a semblance of health care. This can be done rather cheaply and efficiently; but sometimes when we keep people in their own home, if they get beyond the degree of self help, where they need twenty-four hour coverage, what we find is that this is extremely expensive because we have three or four people who are working full-time, looking after one individual. It is much more practical, and certainly a lot cheaper, to have these people placed in homes for special care.

One of the concerns that we always have when we talk about boards and directors and everybody else, is the decision making process as it relates in placement - who goes where. It is not always a clear-cut decision. Somebody who needs year round, or day round, I suppose, care, certainly has to be placed in a hospital or a nursing home, if they need nursing care around the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEARN: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I will come back.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman wants to continue, we have no -

MR. HEARN: I will get back to it.

MR. FUREY: You will get back to it? Some time between (inaudible).

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: He will continue when he is ready. He will have plenty of opportunity to speak to this Bill 46, An Act Respecting The Licensing And Inspection Of Health And Social Agencies.

This Act would repeal the Welfare Institutions Act. This is the Act that sometime in the middle of the night last Thursday we were talking about changing the Welfare Institutions Act to change the Minister of Social Services to the Minister of Health. We haven't got that changed, that Bill, whatever the Bill number was, I can't remember now. We don't have it in place yet. It's not even passed legislation, approved legislation in this House of Assembly. When what we're doing now with this Act is going to repeal the Welfare Institutions Act. If that doesn't show poor planning on behalf of this government I guess nothing else will.

If we have legislation on the books to repeal the Welfare Institutions Act why are we wasting the time of this House of Assembly in changing the Welfare Institutions Act before we - changing the minister's name in the Welfare Institutions Act from the Minister of Social Services to the Minister of Health. Just a silly waste of time in causing this House of Assembly to use up the time. For no reason at all. It's just another frivolous piece of legislation that the government has on the paper.

To say a few words on this Act. I notice that this Act will put in place a director of the Act. I don't know if this is a reorganization of some department that's in the Department of Health already. I would imagine - I know now that there is some licensing agency in the Department of Health now for licensing senior citizens homes, or home.... I forget the exact name of them now, but that's what - there is a licensing board in place now to licence some of the retirement homes that we have, the private homes. There is a director of that board around.

I don't know if this legislation is just a reorganization of what's presently in existence in the Department of Health, or is it setting up a new bureaucracy, a new set of regulations to enforce with the different agencies and different homes around the Province. Or has it any affect on the boarding homes that are presently in the Province? Does it have any affect on the new regional health care boards that we're going to set up in the Province? Is it going to work in conjunction with the health care boards so that they can keep an eye on what institutions are governed by the health care boards in the regions of the city? Not only the city but of the whole Province. Or is it a completely new board that will set up its own bureaucracy and its own regulations?

We have had quite a bit of improvement in the licensing and inspection of senior citizens homes in this Province over the last years. I remember some time just before I became the Member for the district of Kilbride we had a very serious fire in my district in one of these senior citizen homes. Because of an inadequate housing, inadequate facility that the senior citizens were in, we had quite a loss of life in the Chafe nursing home fire some years ago. I don't know if this board will be dealing with that type of situation, to make sure that the homes that we have in existence now are up to scratch and that the present regulations are enforced.

I notice here that the Day Care and Homemaker Services Act will come under this Act somehow in Section 10. That will be a part of this Act. So I guess the director and his staff - it doesn't say how many staff or inspectors he will have, which I find to be - I guess you wouldn't put it in an act. But it says that he should have a reasonable amount of staff to carry out the inspection duties. The problem we are having now with inspections in the whole of the system, the whole of the government system is that because of government cutbacks, our inspection staff is being hampered in many departments not only in the Department of Health, so it is useless for us to pass this legislation whether it is good or bad, it is useless for us to pass this unless the minister can provide the adequate staff and inspections for the director to get on with his duties.

I know of cases now where inspectors in the Crown lands division of the Department of Environment and Lands, because of the way the government has operated its car pool, the vehicles that they have available to them are in such bad shape, in such a state of disrepair that they cannot take them on the highways, so the Crown lands inspectors who are working in the eastern and central regions of the Province, are unable to go out and do their inspections on a timely basis when they have requests from people to go out and have inspections done.

Mr. Chairman, I know that is a fact in Crown lands and I know it is a fact in the Department of Forestry where, some of the forestry officers who have to get out from time to time, to check the forests to see if people with permits are obeying the permits they have and do these inspections. I know in one region here, in the eastern region there are two inspectors; one covers the western end of his region and the other covers the eastern end of the region, but if the person who is covering the western end of his region has to do an inspection, he has to take the pickup that day and go out and do whatever inspections he has, and the person who has the responsibilities for the eastern region in the Department of Forestry, has to sit in the office all day and wait until the vehicle comes back, because they do not have two vehicles to be able to go out and carry out their jobs.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if the inspectors associated with this legislation are going to have the same type of restrictions placed on them, it is better that we forget the legislation and not pass it at all. The inspectors who will be hired on, dealing with this legislation will have to be given the proper equipment to go and do their jobs, or they will not be able to carry out any of the duties that are assigned to them in this section 14 (1) and section 14 (2) of the act.

The act also makes provisions for an appeal board. It is good to see that we have an appeal board in the process. I believe that government should have appeal boards in all of their processes so that if someone is grieved when they are trying to get through bureaucracy they will have at least independent people to go to and make an independent decision on whatever the grievance is, but what happens in most government systems that I see, we set up an appeal board alright but it is almost like workers compensation appeal. You go in and you make a presentation or you put in your claim or whatever you have to do within the system, you are grieved and you cannot get your way so you want to appeal it. What happens in quite a few government systems is that you go back to the same people to do the appeal, the same people who made the original decision are also doing the appeal, so what chance do you have of getting your appeal heard if they disagreed with you in the first place?

I do not know what reason unless you did not give them all the information the first time, but most likely if a person is looking to have something done they will give all the information that they can find in the first place to get it done so, Mr. Chairman, I hope the appeal system that is set up under section 17 of this legislation will be somewhat independent and be able to get on with their appeals and get the feeling at least that they will be able to have an independent hearing of whatever grievance they might have, so, Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear the minister make some remarks (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you Chairperson.

I will gladly give my colleague from Kilbride leave to elaborate on his remarks, but he indicates that he will wait for another turn.

Chairperson, this bill, An Act Respecting The Licensing And Inspection of Health And Social Agencies, is a very important piece of legislation. When we think about our demographics, the characteristics of our population and the projections of age groupings and requirements for community support and health care, we can see that this act may have an even greater significance in years to come from what it has today.

Chairperson, we have now a larger number of elderly people than we have had before and the percentage of senior citizens is increasing. By the time the so-called baby boomers, those of us who were born between 1945 and 1960, become seniors the percentage of the population in that senior category will be very high indeed, high relative to the total population and in comparison to the people of regular working age who are generating income to contribute to the care and support of the elderly people.

The member for Port de Grave seems to display a keen interest in this matter. He must be casting his thoughts to a few years in the future when he may be a recipient of the services which are the subject of this legislation.

Chairperson, this bill, while being an important measure, is the same as health legislation we examined in Committee early Friday morning. When I say early Friday morning, I mean very early Friday morning. I believe it was between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. that we had a committee clause-by-clause analysis of an amendment to the Department of Health Act, which empowers the Cabinet to set up regional community health boards. The same as that, Chairperson, this is important legislation, but it lacks specifics.

This act gives to the Cabinet the power to make the decisions that count. This bill does have more substance than the other bill, but it is by no means a full shell either. Chairperson, the bill purports to put in place a legal framework for what are called health and social agencies. So the definition of health and social agency is central to the meaning of the bill, but we find that the definition is so vague that after reading it a person is left wondering what really is to be the ambit of the legislation. It all comes down to what the Cabinet may put in regulations.

The Cabinet, as we all know, is the political branch of the government which meets in secret with the Premier calling the shots and, for the last few months, his right hand man, the Government House Leader having some influence. Chairperson, the other so-called Cabinet Ministers really don't have any impact on what goes on in these secret Cabinet meetings when regulations, such as the regulations that would be permitted under this bill, are made.

Now, health and social agency is defined in Clause 2 (g) as meaning a residential facility, defined in the regulations, including a nursing home or a residential facility, defined in the regulations, or other residential or non-residential facilities prescribed by the regulations. Or it may mean a service prescribed by - guess what? -regulation, conducted or operated by a person or agency, and which is used in whole or in part to maximize a person's functional independence.

Chairperson, this is a very vague definition of health and social agency. Basically, it can mean whatever the Cabinet, from one week to the next, may decide it should mean. It may mean a lot, it may mean a little. The only precision at all is nursing home. A health and social agency definitely means a nursing home where care is provided to persons who are disabled to a degree where they must have skilled twenty-four hour nursing and continuous medical supervision but do not require all the facilities of an acute care hospital. It definitely means a nursing home and it may mean a variety of other accommodations, services and supports. It may mean a service designed partly to maximize a person's functional independence so I assume that the Cabinet by regulation may define health and social agency to mean a group home for developmentally delayed people although now those facilities are regulated by the Department of Social Services.

Perhaps one of the ministers, the Ministers of Health and Social Services are both sitting opposite, perhaps one or both of the ministers can explain which type of facilities, accommodations, or services will fall within the definition of this act and which will be regulated by the Department of Social Services. This is a health act. The bill defines the responsible department as the Department of Health and the minister as the Minister of Health. This is a health measure but yet it purports to put in place a legal framework for health and social agencies.

My first question is which agencies, in the opinion of the ministers opposite, will the Cabinet from time to time, define as coming under this act, and is the definition not too vague? Would we not be better served if more precision is put in the bill? Chairperson, the bill goes on to give wide sweeping powers to a Department of Health official called the director. The director is given, even by Clause 5 (2) the power to suspend a licence where he or she thinks it is in the best interest of the residents to do so.

Then we proceed to Clause 7 where a board is established. Clause 7 establishes the Health and Social Agencies Board. Now, Chairperson, the bill is rather vague about what the board's powers are, what it is suppose to do, what it is mandated to do. There is a statement in Clause 8 saying that the board is to advise the minister so advising seems to be the only clear cut power, if you can call advising a power at all. Clause 8 says the board shall report to and advise the minister on the application of this act and the regulations, and on other matters in relation to this act and the regulations that may be assigned to the board by the minister.

It appears as though the board does not get to do anything worth while unless the minister asks it to do something but when we read on in Clause 10 we see that licences are to be issued by the board. Then in Clause 11 the board shall issue a licence or a conditional licence to a person to conduct and operate a health and social agency where the board is satisfied of a number of factors. So, issuing licences is a definite power that is given to the board and really the only meaningful responsibility other than advising the minister on whatever the minister may ask the board to comment upon. Chairperson, the act goes on to deal with the procedure for licensing, for inspection and licensing, and then to appeal decisions that people are not satisfied with. Either appealing a decision or order of the director or of the board and all those comments bear scrutiny. Now, at the very end we have a delayed proclamation provision, the final clause of the Bill says that the Act does not come into force until a day proclaimed by the Cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: No, I do not know why, I say to the Junior Government House Leader. I would be glad to yield to him for a minute or two for him -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I am not insulting the minister. I am not insulting the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

MS. VERGE: Oh, thank you, Chairperson.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared also to yield to the Acting Government House Leader if he wishes to explain that point. I am also prepared to yield to the Acting Government House Leader if he wishes to - the Deputy House Leader if he wishes to explain that point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am told that the Minister of Health is taking notes on all points being raised and will address them all, no doubt at some point intermittently during this debate and I appreciate that. I am glad that is the case, Mr. Chairman, because I have a number of queries arising from a review of the legislation. I do not know if we have a full explanation from the minister to date, as to why this piece of legislation is coming before the House and is seeking to have all health and social agencies looked after by the Department of Health.

Now, we have a definition here which includes a wide variety of facilities, Mr. Chairman, senior citizens homes could well be provided as a residential facility, nursing homes clearly, any residential facility for four or more or even less than four persons that might require supervisory care, are all of a sudden considered health and social agencies, Mr. Chairman, and are under the direction of the Department of Health. As well, it appears that the Cabinet is keeping to itself the power to prescribe by regulation any service conducted or operated by an individual or an agency which is used in part to maximize a persons functional independence, is regarded as a health and social agency.

Now, we do not necessarily know what is going to be included in that but I submit, Mr. Chairman, that there seems to be some difficulty here in defining all of these agencies as health and social agencies and then providing an inspectorate and a licensing procedure under the Department of Health. Now, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, although there may well be health implications for the type of service provided, in particular the kind of nursing care and the level of nursing care that may be provided, the medical care that may be provided, the provision and the adequate provision for the dispensing of drugs and other medications. The storage of these medications, the maintaining and the availability of certain medical facilities, such as oxygen or other facilities, Mr. Chairman, there is a very serious and great degree of concern on the other side of life in a residential facility or even in, perhaps more particularly in, when you have a residential facility which is operated by a private person for profit or a private agency for profit, Mr. Chairman, it seems that there are a very considerable aspect of that facility that have very little to do with medication and medicine and health in the narrow medical sense but have a very great deal to do with the social well being of the residents of such a facility. It strikes me, Mr. Chairman, that the kind of inspectorate that might be established for a health facility, may well be very different than the kind of inspectorate and the kind of skills that a person would be required to have if he were doing, what I might call for the lack of a better term at the moment, Mr. Speaker, a social audit facility, something that looks beyond the immediate, day-to-day health needs of an individual and looks further to the social and other side.

Mr. Chairman, some institutions that we have in our Province are very, very good and may be commended for it, and they may well concentrate on providing a level of physical care that is beyond reproach. There are many such institutions that are able, through their experience, orientation, and their dedication, provide a level of physical comfort that is second to none; provide a level of medical care that is second to none, but at the same time fail to provide for the social needs of residents, to feel that they have social activities that are commensurate with their abilities, with their social functioning, and that that is just as important to the well-being of residents of a senior citizen's home, for example, as would be the physical needs and the health care.

It seems to me that by putting the whole of the inspectorate under the Department of Health, it may well be that the kind of inspectors that they have are not the kind of inspectors who would have the right background in terms of social work training, social work experience, and the kind of inspectors that would be aware of the other aspect of residential care facilities needs, beyond the medical and physical care needs which our hospital facilities - that the inspectors who are used to doing that kind of work may well have a lot of technical qualifications, but they may not have the adequate background for social services facilities to understand the whole needs of a resident.

It is not the same as a hospital where whether it is chronic care or a short-term care, acute care hospital, where the physical and medical needs of a patient are outstanding and primary. In a residential care facility, a residential facility which is really a residence for individuals who are unable to look after themselves, that the social side of a person's life is almost as important as the provision of the physical needs to maintain the actual health and well-being of such an individual.

I would ask the minister if he would address that point. I know he finds it amusing to listen to the former Minister of Social Services, who had to be removed from the post. I know he may be able to amuse the current Minister of Health, but I know I would like to certainly hear the minister address that important point as to what kind of inspectors he will have; what training they will have, and whether they will have the adequate degree of social work background and training to be able to look after and inspect on the basis of the social needs of patients, which are certainly, from our senior citizens point of view, and certainly from those who are unable to care for themselves, these needs may well become primary. We do not want to have warehouses for people who may well provide for their physical needs, may well provide for the medical needs, but fail to adequately provide for the social needs of residents.

I would be concerned that the Department of Health approach to this may well be very different than that of social services, and perhaps the Minister of Social Services will address this point when he rises to speak on this debate.

I have a second concern for the other services that are not residential, that may well be prescribed by the Minister of Health, to be involved in this. Are we talking about homemaker services? I assume that we are. If they are related and used to maximize the person's functional independence it seems very clear that the government may well wish, and the Cabinet may well wish to include the homemaker services that have been provided, sometimes by private agencies, some very good, Mr. Chairman, but some may well leave something to be desired. There is no provision here, and perhaps the government intends to put it in the regulations, that there would be standards, not just standards of conduct, but that there would be standards of training that are required in order for someone to have a license.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

I will be fairly brief, Mr. Chairman. I just have two or three questions to ask the minister on different parts of the bill. One in particular is the definition of health and social agencies. A residential facility for four or more people will be considered one of these agencies, or at the discretion of the minister less than four persons. I am just wondering if foster care homes will come under this licensing system, or has there been any consideration to put foster care home under this? I know there is one in my area that has two or three handicapped kids who live in this foster home. I do now know if that will be required to have a special licence.

I mentioned the appeal system before. The minister may comment on that when he gets up. Under the appeals section in Section 17 (3) a person who is appealing to the board may be represented at the hearing by a lawyer. Now, I assume that means a lawyer or others because on occasion members of the House of Assembly are asked to go and support and represent them at different hearings. Also clergy will sometimes go with a person and represent them at an appeal hearing, anyone who is nervous, so I do not know if by saying lawyer there restricts it to only lawyers or if that can be expanded on to allow other people to attend the appeal hearing with the person who aggrieved. Even their accountant will sometimes go to an appeal hearing depending on what the appeal is or any type of professional. Maybe a social worker would like to go and help out at an appeal so I do not know why Section 17 (3) says a lawyer, if it means a lawyer only or a lawyer and others.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you.

I have a few additional questions which I was not able to voice in the ten minutes I spoke on this Bill in second reading. I want to preface these remarks by expressing my regret that government did not refer this Bill to the Social Legislation Review Committee. We have had quite a bit of discussion in the last month or two about the government's failure to use the Legislation Review Committees for the purpose the government announced they were being established. The purpose was good. We praise the government's initiative but the fact is they have really only been window dressing, the same as so many other things the Premier does, all show with very little substance. Chairperson, this is an important measure because it puts in place a legal framework for regulating nursing homes and a variety of other facilities and services which the Cabinet may, by regulation from time to time provide, fall within the definition of health and social agency. When I first spoke and the Member for St. John's East and the Member for Kilbride spoke we asked questions about the boundaries of the services to be governed by this act under the Department of Health, relative to facilities and services which are regulated by the Department of Social Services. There is not an obvious dividing line and it appears as though all the facilities and services which are now administered by the Department of Health, including foster homes for children in the care of the Director of Child Welfare, including group homes for developmentally delayed people and people with other disabilities, could fall within the definition of health and social agencies and be governed by this legislation.

Now in clause 10 (2) of this Bill, there is a statement that: Notwithstanding subsection (1), a person may operate a day care centre for children or offer homemaker services where that person is licensed under the Day Care and Homemaker Services Act, that is an act which is administered by the Department of Social Services.

Subclause (1) says that a person shall neither operate, nor hold himself or herself out as operating a health or social agency unless he or she is the holder of a valid licence issued by the board under this Act.

Now what is the meaning or what is the intention of subclause (2)? Is subclause (2) intended to mean that a day care operator has a choice of being regulated either under this act or the social services legislation? Right now, our day care legislation is deficient and the present Premier promised to reform the day care legislation when he campaigned four years ago. Specifically, the Premier then promised to bring in legislation to provide for public supervision and control of care arrangements for children under two years of age. Now, is the government contemplating that under this health legislation, this Bill, that clause 10 (2), is the government contemplating that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, on a point of order.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask the Chair to clarify - I may have been dozing there through the Member for Kilbride's speech. Did you carry clauses 1 to 9, because the hon. member across the way is dealing with clause 10 now, and I did not hear you call clauses 1 to 9; you can call them now if you like and we can carry it.

MS. VERGE: To that point of order, we are under clause 1 and I am asking a few questions -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member cannot speak until the hon. member has been identified.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

Under clause 1, which the Committee is now considering, I am asking a few questions. I probably would have been finished by now if it had not been for the interruption of the Junior Government House Leader. But I was talking in particular about the definition of health and social agency which is found in clause 2 (g) "health and social agency", and I earlier pointed out that that definition is very vague and all encompassing.

Related to the definition in clause 2 (g), is the question of the intent of clause 10 (2). Does the definition in clause 2 (g) of health and social agency, which specifies only nursing homes and which allows the Cabinet in regulations to basically specify any other kind of facility or service, contemplate day care services and programs for children, or homemaker services or foster homes or group homes for people with disabilities, all of which are now governed by social services legislation and administered by the Department of Social Services?

In the case of day care for children, the social services legislation is deficient; the Premier has reneged on his promise to reform the legislation specifically to provide for public control and regulation of day care for children under two years of age, so, is it the government's intention, and regardless of the intention, is it not possible under this act, whether it was intended or not, for for day care for children under two to fall within the definition of health and social agency and be regulated by the Department of Health.

Now, my other question, Chairperson, has to do with the intent of Clause 15. Clause 15 is a very unusual provision, and I would like the Minister of Health, in particular, to pay attention. It says that a person who conducts or operates a health and social agency -and remember this can mean anything but the kitchen sink, this can mean a nursing home or any other kind of facility or service - such a person shall not bring, cause to be brought, advertise for, or encourage the entry into the Province of an adult person from another jurisdiction to become a client of a health and social agency. What is the purpose of that, and is it even constitutional? Why would this House of Assembly be asked to pass a law which would prohibit the operator of a health and social agency, which is specifically defined in that very loose and vague definition, of being a residential facility, supplied with or without charge, why would such a person operating that kind of a facility be prohibited, or why would anyone want to prohibit such a person, from bringing, causing to be brought, advertising for or encouraging the entry into the Province of an adult person from another jurisdiction to become a client of a health and social agency? That is the question.

As for Clause 15 (b), there would be a prohibition of such a person, a person operating a health and social agency, from soliciting funds by a general or public appeal for the support of a health and social agency without first informing the director in writing. Why is that? Is this a warranted intrusion into people's lives? What business is it of the director if the operator of a health and social agency solicits public funds? It may be it is the business of the director. There may be a good explanation for having this provision in the bill. I would like the minister to provide the explanation.

Chairperson, again, why is there a delayed proclamation provision? Why does Clause 24 say that the act doesn't come into force until a day to be proclaimed by the Cabinet? What are the minister's plans? This House has passed legislation in the past that has never been proclaimed into force. Does the minister have a timetable in mind and, if so, would he explain to us? Thank you.

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

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible) and I will attempt to answer them. On Clause 2, basically what we are trying to regulate here are nursing homes. There are a fair number in the Province which look after quite sick people who need long-term care, and that is properly regulated by the Department of Health.

In addition, we have what used to be known as licensed boarding homes but which are now called personal care homes, which also are to be licensed by the Department of Health, and which are presently licensed by the Department of Health. So this continues that practice.

In addition, the Waterford Hospital has a number of homes out there which are not called personal care homes, they are called community care homes. They, too, will come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East, on a point of order.

DR. KITCHEN: Not loud enough?

MS. VERGE: I'm sorry. I am having difficulty hearing the minister. I would appreciate it if the minister would speak up just a little bit.

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

DR. KITCHEN: I will soon use up my time, Mr. Chairman. The nursing homes are -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. KITCHEN: Section 2, in defining health and social agency, what we are regulating here are nursing homes, personal care homes, community care homes, some group homes - not very many - which the Department of Health pretty well controls now. I know a couple of those that are operated by nursing home boards, for example, where they have severely developmentally delayed people who need constant care - not developmentally delayed, but severely handicapped people - which are operated more or less as a group home.

Then, in addition, we also want to regulate those organizations which provide home care or other types of care, adult day support and things of that nature, and that is the kind of agency we want to regulate. We want to regulate those agencies which offer for sale nursing care in the Province to people who may want to buy it. These are the basic - we are not attempting to take over the Department of Social Services, for example. We are not going to get into what they do, that is their part. So what is regulated under the Day Care and Homemaker Service Act, which I understand is your Act, is still your Act, we are interested in those which have health components, basically.

I presume that the regulations will spell this out in more detail so that there will be no confusion between the two groups. Now, the director is given some pretty broad responsibilities under this Act and he or she will operate, but that director does not have full responsibility because it is the board that issues the licence and can revoke and can take away the licence permanently, whereas the director suspends it. And if the director operates in such a way that someone feels aggrieved, they can appeal to the board. The same board that issues the original licence and may revoke a licence is also the board to which a person or an institution can appeal against the actions of the director, who is an employee of the Department of Health.

The point was raised about a lawyer, that gives permission for a lawyer to accompany a person appealing to the board. It doesn't prohibit anybody else, as I see it, from appearing with the person, but it specifically says that a person may be accompanied by a lawyer, which gives some protection there to the person.

The question was raised with respect to the solicitation of funds, since most of these institutions are funded by the Department of Health, we don't want people to be conducting widespread public appeals for funds for a particular nursing home, a particular personal care home or a particular any other kind of home unless at least we are aware of it, so that is the purpose for that.

I don't know if I have answered all the questions, Mr. Chairman, but I have tried. If there are others I will answer them and (inaudible) to proclamation, well, my intention is to proclaim this as soon as everything is all set to go. That may involve putting the regulations finally in place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clauses 1 through 24 carry?

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Earlier, when I spoke there were a couple of things I raised. I didn't get to the point of asking questions on them because of the time lapse; however, a couple of points now that the minister might respond to. Two key words in this Act that play a very big part, if you look at it, are 'inspectors' and 'director'. Many of the boarding homes, in particular, the homes for special care - and I will concentrate on them for now. Many of the homes for special care have been driven to the wall by inspectors - people coming out and insisting that things have to be done.

We know, in this day and age when everybody is trying to pinch the dollar and trying to be responsible and operate under a very tight budget because there has been no great increase or anything to the homes, as you know, some of the inspectors seem to, when they come out, especially into the rural areas, it seems that they want to throw their weight around. You must do this and you must do that. You must have this done and you have to have it done tomorrow.

Now luckily, I will say to the minister, the senior people in his department are much more considerate when -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: I say to the minister, the senior people in his department seem to be much more considerate when approaches are made, but people have had a tremendous amount of difficulty with the people who come out and inspect facilities. Always, it seems, they cannot come into a place and say: You know, you are doing a good job, or this is good or that is good. Oh, you should get this done and you must get that done. This has to be changed and you have to change your facility, etc., and that is extremely expensive.

The other thing is, in the act, the director here seems to have a tremendous amount of power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HEARN: The director in the act, Mr. Chairman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, the director in the act seems to have a tremendous amount of power. Now directors, I presume, are in a position in a department where once again if they want to throw their weight around they can do so.

I have had some very unpleasant experiences with directors. I have had a lot of very pleasant experiences with directors also; but I have seen, in the health care, directors who throw their weight around and tell, as if they control the purse strings and all the decision making, that you are not getting this done, and you are not getting that done, and you are not getting something else done, instead of saying: It is not our policy, or department policy or whatever it is. I am telling you that you are not getting this done.

When this ties in with the board that we are talking about - a board that is going to be appointed by the minister - a board appointed by the minister, that concerns me because the question I would ask is: How is somebody who is going to perhaps try to establish a health care facility, private sector, homes for special care, the smaller homes or whatever? Number one, if they are turned down by the department, as quite often they are, they have to appeal. Now, in this case it says they must appeal to the board. The board is appointed by the minister so if the minister turns down, based upon sometimes the information with which the minister is presented, but quite often the minister does not really have a - he can only go on what is presented to him. The minister is not expected to be out into every nook and cranny of the Province. He should have a general handle on it but he is not expected to know - Mr. Chairman, I notice it is five o'clock. Do we keep on going?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HEARN: Mr. Chairman, we will continue.

I am happy to adjourn the debate, Mr. Chairman, if that is the wish of the House. The motion is passed.

AN HON. MEMBER: The motion not to adjourn at five o'clock was passed.

MR. HEARN: Well, we will keep on going. That is alright we will adjourn at five o'clock tomorrow evening.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. HEARN: You cannot because the motion has already been made. It will be out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl on a point of order.

MR. WINDSOR: I was not here so maybe the Opposition House Leader can explain to me what has taken place. We have agreed now to go past five o'clock.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Government House Leader moved a motion not to adjourn at five o'clock and the majority voted on the motion and we are still going.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. That motion is not a legitimate motion. The Standing Orders clearly say that at five o'clock we shall adjourn until seven. Now, we can have a vote at five o'clock that the House not now adjourn in which case the Standing Orders clearly say that the Speaker shall adjourn until seven o'clock and we will come back from seven until ten, but there is no mechanism in the Standing Orders which allows the House, except by unanimous consent, to change the Standing Orders, unless we did it by unanimous consent.

MR. MATTHEWS: We did not, we voted against it.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, then that is not by unanimous consent and the motion is clearly out of order. It is as simple as that.

AN HON. MEMBER: The motion is already accepted and carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. The motion was put when the House was in Committee. The motion was passed. It's in order. In fact, I say to my hon. friend for Mount Pearl, the motion was admitted by Mr. William Marshall when he was Government House Leader over here. It is in order. It does not require unanimous consent. The House will continue to sit until such time - perhaps in a few minutes, perhaps an hour, perhaps two, whenever - the House by a majority decides to adjourn. That's all I need to say on the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WINDSOR: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman, again.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Let me quote the Standing Order. Standing Order number 7, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola'll read it for you.

MR. WINDSOR: Standing Order number 7, Mr. Chairman. "If at the hour of 5 o'clock p.m. except on Wednesday and Thursday, the business of the House is not concluded, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair until 8 o'clock." Now if "...the business of the House of not concluded, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair until 8 o'clock."

AN HON. MEMBER: Seven.

MR. WINDSOR: Or in our case now, because the hours have changed, it's 7:00 p.m. It further provides that we shall come back at 7:00 p.m. If at 10:00 p.m., unless the closure rule is in force, which it is not - we have no closure rule - at 10:00 p.m. the Speaker shall then adjourn the House without question.

So if a motion is that we not adjourn, or that the House not adjourn, that's fine. The Speaker shall leave the Chair until 7:00 p.m. and we'll come back from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and then we will adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Quite clear in the Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Orders can only be circumvented by unanimous consent of the house. There is no motion that can be made to change the Standing Orders, except without going through a whole process. So if the House Leader wants us to come back tonight, that's fine. But we shall now adjourn. The Speaker is bound to do it, under the Standing Orders.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That's right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was already a motion before the House, before the House went into Committee, that the House do not adjourn. That was passed. So there's no point of order.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, come on! The rules are here! Either follow them or tear them up!

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

MR. HEARN: On that point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Another point of order?

MR. HEARN: Another point of order. I suppose it could be a point of privilege. Because what we're doing here is we are deliberately going against our own Standing Orders.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. member on a point of order or a point of privilege?

MR. WINDSOR: Point of privilege.

MR. HEARN: A point of privilege, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're in Committee. We'll have to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible) rise the Committee if you want to present a point of privilege.

MR. HEARN: I move we rise the Committee.

MR. WINDSOR: Move the Committee rise, report no progress.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been moved and seconded that the Committee rise and report progress. All those in favour of the Committee rising say 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those against, say 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the motion defeated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. WINDSOR: This is a joke!

AN HON. MEMBER: Learn the rules, Neil.

MR. WINDSOR: I know the rules! You just don't respect them, that's all!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: It's just as well to burn them!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) bloody dictators over there, Mr. Chairman. Dictators! (Inaudible)!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 1 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried!

MS. VERGE: Chairperson.

MR. WINDSOR: Dictators!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 2 carry?

MS. VERGE: Chairperson?

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

(Remainder of Sitting will be found in Hansard Number 89A)


 

December 22, 1992            HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS       Vol. XLI  No. 89A


(Continuation of Sitting of December 22, 1992)

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, Clause 2, the definition clause -

MR. WINDSOR: What a farce.

MS. VERGE: - is quite problematic. It defines health and social agencies which are to be the types of facilities and services regulated by this legislation, but the definition is so vague and broad and uncertain as to be of very little use. The only certainty is saying that it includes, in 2(g)(i)(A): "a nursing home where care is provided to persons who are disabled to a degree that they must have skilled 24-hour nursing, and continuous medical supervision, but do not require all the facilities of an acute care hospital." Other than that the definition allows the Cabinet by regulation to specify pretty well any facility or service imaginable, including services and facilities that have always been governed by the Department of Social Services.

Chairperson, when this is viewed with Clause 10, which refers to day care and homemaker services, there is even more reason to think that this Bill may be setting up a new board and a new regime to take over the responsibility of licensing and regulating the types of facilities and services that are now regulated by the Department of Social Services and that can more appropriately be regulated by Social Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: You won't be here.

MR. WINDSOR: I'll be here. Don't you worry about it.

MS. VERGE: Clause 10(2) -

MR. WINDSOR: I'll be here long after you're gone. Long after you're turfed out.

AN HON. MEMBER: No you won't, brother.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, indeed I will. Indeed I will.

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

I recognized the hon. Member for Humber East.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) we'll have the rules followed too.

MS. VERGE: Clause 10(2), when read along with the definition.... Chairperson, I have to say that I share the frustration of my colleagues. I'm speaking now to raise legitimate concerns about the specific provisions of this Bill, concerns that should have been aired at a Social Legislation Review Committee hearing, when members of the House could have properly analyzed the Bill in an orderly sensible way, in an appropriate environment. When we could have heard the views of people with a stake in the provision of appropriate facilities and services to people who need these supports.

Instead we're here two days before Christmas at 5:09 p.m. when under the rules the House should be recessed for supper, with over thirty other pieces of legislation outstanding on the order paper, which the Premier and the Government House Leader seem bound and determined, for their own reasons of exercise of power, display of power, one-upmanship -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that we're on Clause 2 of the Bill. I remind her about the relevancy and also about repetition. So I ask the hon. member to stick to Clause 2 of the Bill.

MS. VERGE: I'm talking about Clause 2 of the Bill, Chairperson. Clause 2 of the Bill is central to the meaning of the Bill. It is a clause that defines the key terms. It is a clause that says for example, that this is to be a responsibility of the Department of Health and the Minister of Health. It is a clause that defines the agency or the type of agency which is to be regulated and that definition is so vague, apart from saying nursing home, any person looking at the act could not guess what other type of facility or service is to be covered. It would be necessary to see the regulations, regulations which the Cabinet may make anytime at all to know what this act is really getting at. Now we do not have the regulations, the function of the House of Assembly is not to enact regulations, so we really do not know what this Bill will end up meaning.

Now, another definition here is day-care centre. Day-care centre means; a day-care centre as defined in the Day-Care and Homemaker Services Act. Chairperson, what is the definition - what is day-care centre doing in this act, in the definition section, Clause 2, the clause we are on now and in Clause 10, if there is not some thought of empowering this health regulatory scheme to encompass day-care centres and services? Then the definition clause goes on to define disability. Disability means; the chronic inability to cope in one or more aspects of physical, mental, emotional or social functions, resulting in a need for personal or supervisory care in a health and social agency. That term appears further down in the definition of health and social agency, which again, leaves just about everything up to Cabinet through the making of regulations.

So, Chairperson, I listened to the minister's comments, I did have some difficulty hearing him. I also could not understand everything that I did hear but I still have concerns about the lack of precision of the definitions in Clause 2 and the possibility that this government has a secret agenda of changing the legal framework for social services facilities and programs or perhaps unwittingly, is having the Legislature pass legislation that is going to lead to duplication or confusion in the future. Perhaps there is an intention to define a boundary between agencies to be regulated under this act and day-care and homemaker services. If there is that intention, it is not clearly found in the contents of this Bill and I would ask the minister why, in the definitions in Clause 2, he is not insisting on more precision? Would it not be in the interests of his department to have greater accuracy in these definitions?

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to get back to where I was before the dictators inserted themselves. I think we were talking about the provision of licenses based upon the knowledge of the areas concerned. We have throughout the Province a number of areas where the people who are in need of health care find that they must travel many miles, hundreds of miles in some cases to be placed. This places a heavy burden on the families and the friends, especially the families of the people who are placed in various institutions.

For a number of years it seemed that, especially in relation to the homes for special care, we had a conglomeration of them in two or three geographic areas of the Province, and then for quite some time as people applied to be placed in certain homes or applied to build homes even, they were told no, they could not, because there are excess beds and until these were filled or at least close to being filled, no more licences would be provided and what was happening was that you had this proliferation in certain areas where, really you had more beds than the surrounding population within reasonable distance required, consequently what happened is that, people from other areas were expected to go to the areas in which the excess beds were.

Now there are two reasons why we had excess beds. In most cases it was simply because too many permits were given to construct such homes, and in some cases some of the homes were of an age that nobody was very fussy about having anybody belonging to them admitted to the homes, so as this began to change we saw a slow easing of the regulation which allowed homes to be built in certain parts of the Province.

When we are talking about nursing homes, I agree with the system that is used whereby special care has to be taken in selecting the areas where nursing homes are placed, because unless you have the proper medical services to go with the nursing home, and unless you have sufficient numbers, you could be running into an extremely expensive situation. Homes for special care on the other hand have become basically a private operation. The involvement of government is minimal and as I said earlier, I believe somewhere around $2,000 per person per year, and that I would suggest to the minister, and he nods, is perhaps the best bargain we have in health care today, because even people who stay in their home, you might say: well, you know some people stay in their own homes and we have the public health nurse drop in every now and then. That is quite good if we have public health nurses or people who are qualified in the area to help out with giving them needles or helping them with their diets or whatever, but we also have in the homes people who cannot help themselves and who must have around the clock coverage, and that gets to be extremely expensive, well beyond the $2,000 a month not to say $2,000 a year, and it can run up the bill undoubtedly in the Department of Health, so with the private boarding homes or homes for special care, we have top-notch facilities in many parts of the Province, which, if they were looked upon as being a help to our health care system, which they certainly are and treated that way, then we can easily have a very good return on our public investment, plus the individuals who own the homes can also make a fair return, but if they are going to be driven to the ground by inspectors as I mentioned, who are coming out requiring everything to be done you know, immediately, above and beyond what would be realistically expected, then it is extremely hard for these people to stay in business.

I was raising the concern of the board being appointed by the minister because the minister, in making his decision based upon the information provided to him, quite often can reject applications because of no need. I remember a number of applications that were rejected from people who wanted to start a private boarding home because there was no perceived need for such a facility in the area, and when questioned the department would tell you that they based their statistics upon - then it was under Social Services, by the way - they based their statistics and decisions upon reports from the Department of Social Services.

If the local Department of Social Services, the local office, did not have x-number of enquiries about placement in such homes, then they figured that there was no need. They would tell you: We have only had six enquiries over the last two years.

What was happening, of course, in rural Newfoundland - any of us who understand the people of rural Newfoundland and the independence, the old Newfoundland spirit, then we must be very well aware that the last place a Newfoundlander is going to go to ask about his future home, or placement in some special care home, is to the welfare office. There are Newfoundlanders who would starve rather than go up to the Social Services office, because their view of the Social Services Department is not the one we have today - a department, as we heard the minister talk about today, which is there, ready to help out people who were burned out last night or had to move from their homes; a department which is there to help people generally in many social needs, whether it be child abuse or lack of funding, whatever.

To older people, the Department of Social Services is the place when you went to get the dole - when you had nothing else and you went up and got your seven cents a day or whatever and bought your brown flour. The only person who would understand that is the Member for Harbour Grace, I guess, but to older people that is what it meant - and they will not go.

I know people who have been in very, very, hard straits, and when I have suggested that they go to the Department of Social Services, which is there to help them, they say: No way, I am not going there. You only go there if you want the dole.

Mr. Speaker, many of our older people who perhaps live alone, husband and wife, getting well up there, nobody to look after them, looking for some place to go, wanting to go, as they would say, in a home, realizing that they can no longer get into the St. Patrick's Mercy Home, and St. Luke's Home and those because they are now nursing homes.

A few years ago many people walked in there with their suitcase, and they are still walking in on weekends with their suitcase, because they got in there before the rules tightened up, and certainly were not in need of nursing care at all. It was a place for them to go - a retirement home.

The minister agrees again. It is true. We all know that. Some people will say you got in there depending on how much money you have. Now whether this is true or not, we do not know; but that was several years ago. It might have been true originally, but things have changed since the government took over and so on. Now people who get into those homes are people who need nursing care. We have had the experience of trying to get people in, and it is very hard because there are not too many beds vacant at any one time.

One of the peculiarities there in relation to that, though, is in the decision to place. When somebody is designated as in need of going in a nursing home, then they cannot go anywhere else. They cannot be put in a boarding home. They cannot be kept at home. They must go into a nursing home.

We had an incident awhile ago where a woman who was living by herself was checked into, I guess, and it was determined that she needed nursing care - immediate nursing care - because she certainly could not stay by herself. However, there was neither bed in the home. But she lived right next door - from here to the far wall - from a home for special care where they did have people on who were semi-qualified to help out the people under their care. Even though she required care above and beyond what is supposed to be provided in those homes, she was relatively healthy and she could be looked after for a few days there with somebody, at least, around the clock available.

She was told: no, you either stay in your own home, with no one at all around, or you have to go in a nursing home; but we do not have a bed for you in the nursing home, so you have no choice except to stay home by yourself with nobody to look after you. We cannot let you go next door for three or four nights because we are not allowed to place you in a boarding home. Now to me, according to the regulations, what they are saying I guess is right, that no, she has been designated to be in need of higher care than can be given in a nursing home but surely God in an emergency she should be favoured.

I will come back to it later, Mr. Chairman.

DR. KITCHEN: Oh, sorry, I did not mean to interrupt the floor but the hon. member raised a couple of points that I thought I would like to address.

One has to do with the officiousness of inspectors, I think you made that point. I believe that relates to inspectors as mentioned in Clause 2 and I think that it may be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, for me to address that but if not I will wait until we get to Clause 14 which gives the powers of these people. As I see it, if an inspector becomes officious and the person who is being inspected feels that way, there are a number of avenues. First of all they can appeal to the director directly or to the board, which is an independent group appointed by the minister and not part of the Department of Health at all but citizens who have a grain of sense, hopefully and assuredly. That is why they were selected because they are fairly wise people who can interpret the community fairly well.

Secondly, there is always the ombudsman that we have here. I am looked upon as Minister of Health, I look upon part of my role to look at complaints that arise from people about the way the department is conducted and from time to time I do get complaints from people about the way officials operate. Every time we do it we look into it and see if there is anything to it and sometimes there is and we try to take steps to ameliorate that.

So, that's about the protection against officiousness on the part of inspectors. I have not had very many complaints about inspectors, to tell you the truth, that is not what happens. The other point the member raised had to do with people being turned down for licenses for personal care homes. As you know, recently we said that anyone can open a personal care home providing that the home is properly set up and it is inspected and so on. We do not care how many or where they are. Whereas before, sometimes people were rejected on the very grounds that you mentioned, that there is already one here and it is not filled and so on. Now we are into the other situation where people are setting up personal care homes and I am not sure that that is totally appropriate either because here is what happens, you have a person, and you mentioned the fact that these are barely viable business opportunities, you do not make a fortune operating a personal care home. If you operate it carefully you may make a living or a good part of a living.

The problem occurs this way. It is grand when the home is filled, when the home is filled things are going fine, but if you suddenly lose five residents and you have your license for twenty, you have five vacant beds, that means fifteen beds have to cover all your expenses and your overhead and it is very difficult. So if you have several of those homes operating in an area and a new one starts up, people go to the new one because it is new. In the older one, as people die and so on, the number is decreased and it is hard to recruit, than someone has a personal care home which is not quite full. It becomes very difficult to keep up. They say: we may have to go out of business and I wish I were. If it is an ordinary business like a corner store, you can say well tough luck but the fact remains there are fifteen people remaining in that home who have been living there for a number of years and that is their home. They have nowhere else to go and they have established these bonds of relationships with the staff and relationships with each other that are very important to them because it is such a large part of their life. So it is a very serious thing in my view if a nursing home has to fold because of competition because of someone else getting into the business. There is something to be said for competition and for people getting into the business. There is also something to be said for having some restraint. At the moment we do not have any restraint and I am not sure if that is correct or not maybe we should revisit that to some extent, somewhere in between.

We have sufficient nursing home beds in the Province, pretty well, but they are not all in the right places. Particularly nursing homes plus chronic care in hospitals but sometimes we have people who are in a chronic care or a nursing home facility which is far removed from where they are. Their families are far removed and it would be much better if the nursing home were close by but a nursing home is a more expensive proposition even than a personal care home because you have a fairly elaborate set up here. Hopefully you have not only the nursing part of it, the feeding part of it, the bed-making and all of that but you also have, if it is done appropriately, you have physiotherapy, occupational therapy, recreational therapy, you have all of this operating and it is not easy to set up one.

When they are in places which are inappropriate, we have a system which is fairly inflexible and that poses problems as well. Even though we may have a sufficient number of chronic care beds, they are not always in the appropriate parts of the Province and that again poses problems. We have to be extremely careful where we are building these chronic care institutions to make sure that they are appropriate. We do not want people to be far, far removed from whatever family or friends that they have outside. So, there are problems involved in that.

The other point that the member made had to do with the welfare mentality, where some people do not want to go to the office - the department has a procedure and if you want to get into a personal care home you have to fill out a form. That is what you are referring to I think, and I have received a number of complaints about that because here is somebody saying I want to go into a personal care home, I do not want any money from the government, I just want to go there and pay my way. Why do I have to see the welfare officer and fill out all this old nonsense? I have asked the people in the department to look at that and see if there is any way to change it. They tell me that that is true about that person now but what happens later? Well, maybe that is not sufficient excuse so we are looking at that point because we are quite sensitive to that. It does not make any sense for a person to have to declare their assets when they are paying their own way completely. I can see in a nursing home where a person is subsidised by the government because in a nursing home the average cost is about $37,000 a year, average, some are less and some are more but that is the average.

Some personal care homes do not cost the government anything. That is basically it, because some we do subsidize on keeping watchmen in the nighttime, or watch persons in the night time, but in the new ones that are being established we are not even doing that.

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

MR. HEARN: I have some questions for the minister.

I agree with what he is saying. I think there has to be a happy medium in deciding where such homes be built. If not, you would have a whole lot of people, everyone complaining about going out of business and disruption, particularly on the people who live in there. I agree with that.

I think one of the major resources that the department has in the field, that up until now they have not taken advantage of, is the public health nurse. I know in a number of cases the public health nurse had a much better handle on who wanted to go in homes and who was suitable to go, et cetera, than certainly the welfare officer in the area; but apparently the Department of Social Services, who originally looked after those homes, dealt with their office. As you say, a lot of people would not go near the office at all.

I just have a question on his last comment about the new homes and so on. Now I presume we are talking about homes anywhere from four or five beds up to twenty maximum or whatever, and you said almost anybody who wanted to start one can. Does the government subsidize any now, or if anybody wanted to build a home are you completely on your own, taking your chance; if you get the residence that is it? Is there any government subsidization at all now, or is it out the window?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have a number of personal care homes which are subsidized. The residents are subsidized in those. The government pays for them to be there. Some have some residents who are subsidized and some who are not, but we have stopped subsidizing any additional placements, so that if so-and-so has a personal care home of thirty, twenty of which are subsidized, he or she can keep the twenty - for the time being anyway - and if someone leaves that home, that gives a subsidized vacancy there, but we are not adding any more subsidization at the moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: They are on their own - right.

On motion, Clauses 1 through to 6, carried.

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

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I am rising on Clause 7. Have we come to that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 7?

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Yes, I have a couple of questions on Clause 7. Clause 7 establishes the board - the board which is to have the power of issuing licences, and the role of advising the minister.

I would like to ask the minister about the proposed composition of the board. It says: Consisting of seven members, namely, a chairperson, who in the case of a tie shall have a casting vote, one representative of the department and those other members that the minister may appoint.

Has the minister thought of the possibility of providing for representatives of different sectors who are involved in receiving services, or residents, being on the board? For some similar boards we have provision for consumer representatives. Also, for some boards we have a requirement for regional representation.It seems to me that it would be a good idea for this board, considering the importance and the nature of its mandate, to have at least some consumer representation and to have members from the different geographic areas of the Province. The clause provides for a total of seven members, four to constitute a quorum. The clause also points to the possibility of their being more than one representative of the department or more than one civil servant. It seems to me, Chairperson, that the clause should clearly establish that there has to be a large majority of citizen representation, that this should be a board representing the public.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has stated the way I feel about it, too. There should be regional representation within reason, there should be gender balance on the board, and there should be people there who are interested in being on that particular type of board and who have something to contribute. The consumer rep, I am not sure on, that is maybe something to think about, personal care homes usually have people who are not too well. Maybe a person might be found who could serve on a board, I have no problem with that, it is probably a good idea, and the department representation would be kept to one.

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

MS. VERGE: In that case, Chairperson, I move an amendment that Clause 7 (1) read that there is established the Health and Social Agencies Board to be appointed by the minister consisting of seven members, namely a chairperson, etc., a maximum of one representative of the department and five other -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I am composing from the top of my head but recently -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. member would take a minute just to write out the amendment and table it. We could then see if it is in order and proceed from there. Perhaps the Chair would like to recess for a second.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. member on Clause 7?

MR. HARRIS: Yes. I just want to make a few brief comments, Mr. Chairman, which will give the Member for Humber East time to compose her amendment for the view of the Chair. I did not hear the minister's remarks when he spoke first in response to the first series of comments but at this section of the act can he explain the relationship, if any, between the board being established here and the regional health care boards that we talked about the other day? This is a board which is going to have some control, at least over standards and licensing of health care facilities, and is he concerned at all that there might be some conflict in the role of this board and the boards that are established presumably to provide for the delivery of non-hospital health care facilities of which these would be examples, I would think, or are the functions of this board restricted to licensing inspection and setting standards of that nature as opposed to the delivery of services.?

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

DR. KITCHEN: The latter is correct, Mr. Chairman. There should be no conflict between these. One of the roles of the community regional health care boards will be to assign individuals. If for instance there is a nursing home that has a vacancy, the nursing home will be inspected by this department and will be licensed by the board but the regional community health care board would say; now, here is Mrs. so-and-so who is looking for a place in a nursing home, where shall she go?... or there are three people looking for places, which one is most deserving? This will be done by the regional community health care board. Or they may decide that Mrs. so-and-so can very well stay in her place, in her home, and we will try to arrange some home care for that person. That would have nothing whatsoever to do with this licensing and inspection group, that would be a different function entirely.

MS. VERGE: I can explain what I mean, it will just take me a couple of minutes to put it in something resembling a legal draft.

MR. FUREY: We do not mind waiting, I would like to see it written out so we can compare it.

MS. VERGE: Basically, what I am trying to get at is a -

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

MS. VERGE: - board of seven which is the number in the Bill. A maximum of one representative of the public service to be a representative of the Department of Health. The other six to be from outside government and of the six some representation of consumers of the facilities and services which are being regulated by the act, that is what I am trying to get into a legal draft.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Just one second, the Chair would just like to say that maybe we could go on with Clause 8 if there are no problems and look at the other clauses and come back to seven later.

On motion, Clauses 8 - 10, carried.

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

MS. VERGE: I asked questions a bit earlier about the significance of 10.2. Is there an intention on the part of the minister and the government to exclude from the ambit of this Bill, day-care and homemaker services? If so could this not be worded a little more precisely because this could now be interpreted as allowing a day-care operator to be licensed under the Social Services Day-care and Homemaker Act or this new act.

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

DR. KITCHEN: A person shall neither operate nor hold himself or herself out as operating a health and social agency unless he or she is the holder of a valid license. So all we are saying here is that this does not apply to people who are operating day-care. That is quite clear in my view.

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

MS. VERGE: If that is the intention, Chairperson, should it not be amended slightly to say that a person operating a day-care centre for children or offering homemaker services shall operate with a license under the Day-care and Homemaker Services Act, just to make it clear that there is to be a separation between the two?

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

DR. KITCHEN: What we are really saying here, Mr. Chairman, is that no one may operate a health or social agency unless you have a license, however you may operate a day-care centre if your are licensed under day-care. If you want to run a day-care you are okay but otherwise you have to get a license from this institution here, from this board here. I think that is clear.

On motion Clauses 10 through 14, carried.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Chairman, on Clause 15.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member has agreed to revert back to Clause 15.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: I have to ask again, why would the House of Assembly be asked to pass a law to say that somebody who operates a health and social agency, remembering that the definition includes facilities that are provided without charge, why would we be asked to make a law prohibiting such a person from bringing from another jurisdiction somebody to become a client, or causing to be brought, or advertising for, or encouraging, somebody from another jurisdiction? Why would we want to pass that kind of a law? Is that not an unreasonable infringement into private activity which may be nonprofit or may be for profit? What is the purpose of that?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned before nursing homes cost on the average $37,000 per person per year to operate for the people of this Province and if an operator of a nursing home which has been licensed to have, say 100 people in it, and finds that it is half vacant we do not want them advertising in Ontario or somewhere to bring in people to fill it up at our expense. I guess that is basically what we are saying.

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

MS. VERGE: The minister has a valid point in wanting to regulate the spending of public monies for these agencies but I am afraid this clause casts far too wide a net. Why would not the minister consider some amendment to this to require anyone bringing, causing to be brought, advertising for, or encouraging? Those are pretty broad all encompassing terms. If somebody has a boarding home why can that person not bring a relative from Ontario who is wealthy and who will not be looking to the minister or the government for any assistance to live in the boarding home in Trepassey? Why not, to cover off whatever valid interest the government may have, require that anyone contemplating bringing, advertising, or encouraging, to get permission from the director?

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

DR. KITCHEN: It may be that eventually we may want to change this, but at the moment what happens frequently is a person in a personal care home no longer has connections with his own former home and if their physical condition deteriorates further they end up in a nursing home so if we bring in these people, say from Ontario or somewhere, and they are in the personal care home, perhaps in five years they will be in the $37,000 bracket again. I think that is basically the point. I think I would like to leave that there, given the financial position of the Province. Perhaps at some future time we may want to take in people from other provinces, board them and look after them, when we have a system in Canada where the tab is picked up in an appropriate fashion, but we are not in a position in this Province, as I see it, to be subsidizing nursing home care for people of other provinces.

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

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I would like for the minister to tell us if he has a legal opinion about this provision. I would doubt very much that this provision can be enforced, and if there is an attempt to enforce it I suspect that it would probably be struck down as violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the freedom of movement of people within Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: The junior Government House Leader says that he will wait for a challenge. I would hope that we would all try to ensure that whatever bills we are putting through the House comply with the Charter.

Perhaps the minister might like to check, because I think there might be a way for whatever goal the minister has that is legitimate to be accommodated, but this, as I said before, casts far too wide a net and is practically unenforceable and in any case is probably unconstitutional.

On motion, Clauses 15 and 16 carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 17 carry?

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I just have one comment. I did not hear the minister's answer to my question on Clause 17.(3): The person who is appearing before the appeal board may be represented by a lawyer.

I do not know if he knows if that is restricting anyone else from going for him, or should we add something to that, saying: By a lawyer or anyone else, or any other representative?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The member for Port de Grave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, if it is necessary to clarify it, I would move an amendment that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Be quiet, Matlock. You are out of order, Matlock.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, if necessary to improve that, or clarify it, I will move the amendment that we add, after lawyer, the words: Or anyone else that the person appealing to the board wishes to attend with him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could the Chair have a copy of the amendment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Just on a point of order, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. FUREY: You are referring to Clause 17.(2)?

AN HON. MEMBER: Clause 17.(3).

MR. FUREY: Clause 17.(3) - okay.

The person who is appealing to the board may be - I think the minister said 'may be' - represented by a lawyer. It does not preclude anybody else from representing the person.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Unless lawyers get involved and then, of course, up it goes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Could we have order please?

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

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

I would like to raise a point of order. I have just been physically threatened by the Member for Port de Grave. I asked whether that was a threat and he indicated, yes. He implied the threat of physical violence against me on the floor of the House, and I ask him that he take it back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The amendment to Clause 17 -

MR. FUREY: On a new point of order, Clause 17.(3) was amended to allow for anybody else, correct? I think the interpretation is 'may be' and does not preclude anybody from - so if you want to withdraw the amendment - because that is the interpretation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, to that point of order if the interpretation is that anyone else can also go and attend this appeal, I withdraw my amendment, if that is the interpretation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so the hon. member is withdrawing the amendment.

On motion, Clauses 17 - 24 carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

We will now revert to Clause 7. The hon. member has an amendment she would like to make.

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: An amendment to Clause 7.1: there is established that the health and social agencies board to be appointed by the minister consisting of seven members who are people outside the public service who represent the public interest, at least one of whom shall be a user or a consumer of a health and social agency. Then subclause 2: The minister shall designate one of the members to be Chairperson, who in the case of a tie, shall have a casting vote. Then, what is now subclauses 2 through 6 shall be renumbered 3 to 7.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question? Amendment to Clause 7.1 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Could we have order, please!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have order while the Chair is putting the question?

Clause 7.1, the amendment: there is established a health and social agencies board to be appointed by the minister consisting of seven members who are people outside the public service who represent the public interest, and at least one of whom shall be a user or consumer of a health and social agency.

On motion, amendment defeated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment to Clause 7.2 -

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, the other proposals really are not relevant now that the proposal to amend subclause 1 has been defeated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So, you are withdrawing the amendment.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The Shops' Closing Act, that is more appropriate. Let's debate that one - `The House Closing Act.'

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, The Shops' Closing Act - perhaps it should be called 'The House Closing Act'. There are some amendments which I believe have been distributed to members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do we have to go for that?

MR. ROBERTS: We are at the top of the second page now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order No. 2, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act", (Bill No. 22).

On motion, Clause 1 carried.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 2 carry?

AN HON. MEMBER: What is going on?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on Clause 2.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: No problem, no choice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's East is on a point of order, if I could get order in this House.

MR. HARRIS: My point of order may be resolved if the Chairperson can recognize somebody. If the Chair would recognize the Deputy Government House Leader and we would all consent to go back to Clause 1, my point of order would be irrelevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We shall revert to Clause 1? Okay.

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

MR. HEARN: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether we needed the Junior Deputy House Leader to tell us that we had to revert. I was standing before Clause 1 was called. I presume Your Honour would recognize that, and I think he did and suggested that I start on Clause 1.

Mr. Chairman, we have some serious concerns about The Shops' Closing Act, and I am sure others have also, not because of what it does, but mainly because of the potential of what it can do.

Some of the clauses, if Your Honour has read the report submitted by the Government Services Legislation Review Committee - basically the report dealt with submissions that were made to the committee, and the feelings of the committee.

I have wondered several times why we have committees, anyway. Number one, we have seen very few pieces of legislation given to the committees, and number two, even when legislation does come to the committee, when hearings are held, I still wonder what influence it has upon the decision-making in relation to the legislation.

The report from the Chairman to the House mentions that there were four presentations in St. John's, one in Gander, and three in Corner Brook. That is a total of eight presentations, Mr. Chairman. A little further on, he says: 'There was, however, opposition to the proposed changes from the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, from NAPE, and from two other presenters.' Mr. Chairman, what he is saying here is that half of the presenters objected to the changes and wanted status quo.

If we want to carry it a bit further, if you look at who the presenters were, you had a number of individual presenters, the two major groups who made presentations, the Federation of Labour and NAPE representing, I presume, every unionized worker in the Province, were against this piece of legislation. Yet, there is no attempt at all, or just a cosmetic attempt, made to change the total legislation. So, if all the people affected by the legislation are against it - or just about all the people, why then do we continue to ram such a piece of legislation through the House, unless it is to appease a few employers?

Mr. Chairman, the clauses of the bill, if we want to go through them - the first one talks about an exempt shop and that it be declared by regulation. We have no real problems with that. Number two, we will omit for now. Section 3, where a person - talking about increasing the fines, we agree wholeheartedly with that. Because the fines - Mr. Chairman, could I have order? I am just shouting in vain.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is extremely hard, after talking all day, to try to shout over a bunch of people who carry on conversations across the House.

Clause 3, where they talk about increasing the fine, we support, because some of the larger shops who, during the past few years, opened their doors on Sundays, in particular, were given a slap on the hand. The fines they were given, they took in an hour, and certainly were no deterrent in keeping the stores closed.

Also, we agree with the suggestion to take out of the bill, the section pertaining to opening a store any other day rather than Sunday, if you choose to do so. We discussed that at length earlier and if somebody wants to challenge it then we agree, well, let them challenge it and we will find out what happens there.

Our real concern, Mr. Chairman, is in the omission of the five holidays, one of which it has been suggested we put back - Thanksgiving Day. There are four others. The people who will be required - and I presume the Member for St. John's East is going to speak on this also - the people who will be required to go to work on these holidays, being days that we always looked upon as holidays, are the people who work in the larger stores in the larger centres. It will not affect the outports because shop closing doesn't apply out there. Most of the smaller rural areas are open right around the clock. But in the larger centres, the malls, the large stores in the malls, supermarkets, etc,, we are asking people who are probably being paid $4.75 an hour, the minimum wage, which most of them are - we are asking them to go back to work on days that we, and the public service, generally, are off on holidays. A couple of the days, in particular, are of concern because of the effect it is having on our culture and our heritage. Those days certainly would be St. George's Day, King Billy's Day, as we call it, the 12th of July, or Orangemen's Day and, of course, the 17th of March, St. Patrick's Day, which for certain areas of the Province, certainly the area I represent, the area in which I live, is one of the major holidays of the year. Now, here in St. John's, where there is a very strong Irish-Catholic contingent, where many of them celebrate heavily, if a lot of the people involved, family members and so on, are off to work, then it eliminates the holiday and the celebrations to have taken place on these days. The same thing applies in other parts of the Province on Orangemen's Day, when major parades are held, different ceremonies, celebrations of different types. Now, if the Shops' Closing Act is going to say: Well, all those who work in stores have to go out and work for their $5.00 an hour during those days when others can celebrate, it detracts from the holiday. I think the holidays add to our culture and heritage. Among the greatest things we have going for us are our history and culture and our tourism potential, and if we are going to toy and play with that, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we are shoving in the thin edge of the wedge and I think what you are going to see in another year or couple of years down the road is, government now saying, well, half the people in the Province are working, anyway, on Discovery Day, Orangemen's Day and St. Patrick's Day, why should the rest of them be off? and we are going to see these days eliminated entirely as public holidays in Newfoundland, which I think is to our detriment.

Mr. Chairman, one of the other concerns is the time frame of the holidays. We had a presenter to the committee, who basically outlined the different holidays and discussed them in light of the time frame during the year, and most of them are break time when people can celebrate with their families, whether it be Discovery Day, which is usually bon fire night in a lot of places in the Province. You have Orangemen's Day in July, the children are off, it is a good time for parents to have a long weekend. You have the 26th of April, or somewhere in that range, you have King George's Day, 26th or 27th of April, and it is also a good time to get a break during the long winter.

But if we look at the holidays now, once New Year's Day is over, the first of January, the next holiday is Good Friday, so we have January, February, March and part of April without a break, and in Newfoundland, during the long, hard winter, that is rough on anybody. Mr. Chairman, these things, I think, are important but I think the most serious thing we are doing here, is toying with our heritage and our culture, and I think, as I said, that will certainly be to our detriment.

I suggest that we not pass this bill as is, but that we should look upon reinstating as we did with Thanksgiving Day - a very important day for the family - the other holidays that we are taking out also.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Chairperson.

I want to make a few remarks on this legislation, which seeks to do a number of things. The first concern I have here is that the government is intending to essentially permit employers to force their employees to work on these various days, for the sake of what, Mr. Chairman? We are not satisfied that the government has really provided any good reason to bring about these changes. We are not in a situation such as some border areas, those areas bordered by the United States which have problems with competition from other retail outlets. We are not like St. Stephen, New Brunswick, which is on the border between it and Maine. The only border problems we have is with St. Pierre et Miquelon and I don't think The Shops' Closing Act is going to affect the trades between St. Pierre et Miquelon and Newfoundland. I don't think it has anything to do with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I don't think it has anything to do with that. I believe most of this trade goes on at night, in any event, after all the shops would otherwise be closed. So we don't have the cross-border shopping problem that other areas such as Ontario have, and the Western Provinces, British Columbia, in particular, where it is quite easy for residents to go across the border on a day trip and buy things, whether it be a Sunday or a Saturday, or a holiday that we might be celebrating in Canada, so there is no real economic pressure on stores to compete.

We have had flagrant and blatant violations of The Shops' Closing Act with respect to Sunday shopping, and for what? The only reason we have had it is because it offered an opportunity for a store that was open, and was prepared to take the fines, take the slap on the wrist - they were able, therefore, to compete with the shops that were closed. That is the only problem we have with The Shops' Closing Act.

Some stores - I guess K Mart was one of them -

MR. MURPHY: Open them up seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day.

MR. HARRIS: That's right. The Member for St. John's South is expressing a point of view which appears to be the attitude of the government, and even some on the PC side. I know the Member for Kilbride has strong views on this. Open them up seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, and let the employers force people to work on those occasions, in the middle of the night, whether they want to at night, whether they have families or not, whether they have other obligations or not. That is the attitude that the government members seem to have, and it is an attitude that I oppose.

The only problem we have had - and I don't know who they are responding to, I don't know who has been making representations to the government. They seem to think that they indeed have a problem here. There is no additional economic advantage by removing all of these holidays. It doesn't affect one iota of retail trade. It doesn't add to the coffers of the - it doesn't put any extra money in the pockets of people who are going to spend money in stores. It doesn't add anything to the economic life of the community. All it does, in fact, is it probably has an economic consequence because it makes the competition for retail trade perhaps a little less sensible because they may have to keep the same stores open and pay lots of overhead to get, in fact, the same amount of business.

The same amount of business is going to come because people only have so much money to spend in the retail sector, so it is not really providing any economic advantage at all. In fact, in my view, it will have a detrimental effect on the economy of the retail trade.

It is all very well to be open if everybody else is closed, and that is what we have had happen with certain businesses who decided they wanted to violate The Shops' Closing Act because they knew, when they went to court, they were only going to get a slap on the wrist and that they were going to be able to make a profit despite the fact that they violated the Act.

Section 8, Clause 3 of the bill, is a good provision because it does allow the punishment to fit the crime and place a disincentive on business. If the only change being made to The Shops' Closing Act was Clause 3, I would have no difficulty supporting it; but instead we are going farther than that. They have put back Thanksgiving Day, and I guess we can be thankful for that, that Thanksgiving Day has been reinstated. At least, it is being proposed to be reinstated by the amendment proposed by the - well, we are not sure who - I suppose the person who has come to be known as the Junior Deputy House Leader. The Junior Government House Leader, I guess, will be proposing that amendment to The Shops' Closing Act, so we are thankful for getting Thanksgiving Day back; but the problem here is that - even though, I think it is interesting to note that there is an organization which made substantial representation to the Legislation Review Committee at the time of its consideration of this bill.

This bill is at least one that went to the Legislation Review process, so perhaps we don't need to spend too much time in this House debating it here tonight. I don't think we need to have four or five hours of debate here in Committee of the Whole, because it has been reviewed by a legislation committee. At least, there has been an opportunity for representations to be made and we do not have to spend the same amount of time in the House on them as we would otherwise, such as with the police complaints bill. But one of the groups making a substantive representation to the Legislation Review Committee, Chairperson, was the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour. They said that although it probably would not affect their members very much, the 40,000 members of the Federation of Labour, because they are dealing, of course, with the unionized sector and their holiday arrangements are governed for the most part by their collective agreements. It will affect the non-unionized sector, who could be forced to work these traditional holidays. And here we are talking about the ones that have not been put back by the amendment, the holidays of St. George's Day and St. Patrick's Day, the holidays that are part of our cultural heritage, our cultural background. We keep talking about multi-culturalism in Canada, but here in Newfoundland we don't seem to be prepared to recognize our own founding cultures, the Irish and the British, recognized by St. Patrick's Day, St. George's Day and Orangemen's Day. These are symbolic holidays representing the Scots, Irish and British tradition in this Province. They are traditional days of great importance in those areas which are predominantly one group or another. The areas represented by the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes and the Member for Ferryland, are almost exclusively of Irish decent. The tradition of St. Patrick's Day is one that ought to be followed. It is tradition that Orangemen's Day, as well, be recognized as such, because it has provided historically, in the very short summers we have in Newfoundland and Labrador, an opportunity for us to have two or three long week-ends together in the summertime. Orangemen's Day is very important for that, very important, even for those who are not moved by the tradition of Orangemen's Day. I know, for the Member for Harbour Grace, it is a very big day in his area - not so much in Ferryland or Trepassey or St. Mary's, but still a day that the people of Trepassey, St. Mary's and St. John's and all sorts of other places, regard as an opportunity for them to spend some time on a long week-end with their family even if they are not celebrating Orangemen's Day. And that is important, Chairperson, because it is part of the tradition that we have come to know. It doesn't hurt anybody, Chairperson, to have Orangemen's Day celebrated as a shop closing holiday, it does not hurt anybody to have St. Patrick's Day celebrated as a holiday. In fact, it ensures that families can be together on those days because one person or another in the family is not required to go off to work and it is not encouraging - there is no new money being spent on these new days that have been opened. People can only spend - they can only shop so much, there are plenty of days in the year.

AN HON. MEMBER: 'Shop 'til you drop'.

MR. HARRIS: 'Shop 'til you drop', yes, there have been occasionally - we see these twenty-four-hour shopping extravaganzas and some people actually go and shop at three or four in the morning. I understand there is a supermarket open twenty-four hours a day except for one day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to have a couple of words on this bill. I did speak once on it in the second reading debate. It didn't take much time and I don't expect it will take much time in this debate. I just want to have a few comments.

First of all, it did go to the Legislation Review Committee, and for that, I congratulate government. I believe the Member for Fortune - Hermitage chaired the meeting. He didn't have any final meeting to prepare the report, which I found strange, but sobeit, at least it went to the committee hearings.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention once again a situation in my district: I have a small auto supply parts business, Chafe's on the road going in to the Goulds. The Member for St. John's South passes it every day on the way up from his home. It is a husband and wife operation - auto supplies, a mini-Canadian Tire-type, I guess, a lot smaller. But they opened on one of these holidays. I don't know what day it was - one of the holidays on the list. So the husband and wife opened their own business on that day, a Thursday, Friday or Monday or whatever, to try to scrape together a living. We all know right now it isn't easy to make a living, certainly never easy for those people to make a living when they are competing with Canadian Tire and Western Tire and these bigger operations - K Mart - so they stayed open. Who appeared at their doorstep? Somebody obviously must have complained. Somebody came in and gave them a summons to go to court because they opened their own business on one of these shop closing days.

Mr. Chairman, my suggestion for The Shops Closing Act is still the same as it was when the minister introduced it - that he take it and throw it in the garbage. In this Province, if anyone wants to work, they should be allowed to work whenever they can work. The last thing we need to do is restrict people from working.

It is my philosophy that if I can work seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year, that is when I will work, and that is when I think anyone should be able to work in this Province, if they want to, especially if it is in your own business and you do not have - even if it is not; even if you open every Sunday and every holiday and twenty-four hours a day, you are only creating more jobs. There are more people going to be hired on to fill that time - the extra time. There will be more employment. There will be better business, more competition around, and I do not see why anyone cannot just operate the same as they do down in the states.

I remember the first couple of times I went down to Florida. It was a bit of a shock because it never dawned on me that people would open on Sunday or would open on a Good Friday or - Easter I was down there at the time, but everything was going full blast. It did not matter one way or the other, one day or the other. If you did not want to shop, you did not have to shop. If you needed extra employees you created more jobs, so I do not understand what the problem is with anyone wanting - now my view is my personal view. It is certainly not the view of this side of the House, not the fellow down on the end - on either end. Both of them would argue strenuously with me that is not a correct view, but I do say that we should be allowed to open our businesses whenever we wish, and hire as many people as we possibly can, except the problem right now is that we have a payroll tax and you cannot hire any more than twelve or thirteen without getting involved in the payroll tax, but we have one year off with the payroll tax this year, so probably we could, if we got rid of The Shops Closing Act along with it, maybe we would create a few jobs. Maybe we would make a lot more people able to have some employment in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, with those few comments, that is all I have to say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment to Clause 2 carry?

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: I just want the record to show, Mr. Chairman, that I disagree totally with everything the Member for St. John's East had to say, and I totally agree with everything that the Member for Kilbride had to say.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be fairly brief.

I am surprised that there are least two members over there who I thought would be standing up on this - three, actually. The Member for St. John's South did stand, but I am surprised by what he said. I thought he would be defending keeping St. Patrick's Day as the type of holiday it has always been. I am surprised that the Member for Harbour Grace has not been on his feet. The Member for Harbour Grace, who lives in an area where Orangemen's Day is such a great day, I thought he would be up trying to make sure that the holiday was preserved throughout, and, of course, the minister responsible. Why I thought he would be up is because when the committee met, as I mentioned, there were eight presentations. Four of them were solidly supporting the status quo. Two of these were from the representatives of all the unionized workers in the Province, and basically when the Federation of Labour speaks we understand that they basically take into consideration all those who work in the Province.

In many of the stores that would be open, the workers would not be unionized. That is unfortunate because many of them get paid, as I say, the minimum wage, and will be expected to go back on holidays when everybody else is celebrating.

I would like to ask the minister who was a former labour leader himself - I should not say a labour leader because I never looked upon the Newfoundland Teachers' Association as a labour organization, it should be a professional organization, it always was when it had credibility and hopefully always will be. But for a while, under the member's tutelage and the leadership of the present Minister of Environment and Lands, it became a labour union basically, and tied in with all the other labour unions, lost a tremendous amount of respect with the teachers in the Province and with the people in the Province generally. The member knows it is only oh so true because, Newfoundland Teachers' Association was one of the most respected professional organizations in this Province, when it was made up of people who were concerned about children rather than in itself, but I ask the minister, the former labour leader himself, how can he not acknowledge the representation made by NAPE and made by the Federation of Labour?

When they came into the committee, that is why we have committee hearings, to get the views of people affected, and the people who are affected, the majority of them came and said: this piece of legislation is not right or proper; this piece of legislation should be thrown out, we should leave things as they are. A couple of minor points you have we agree with them and corrections have been made, but basically we are asking you leave our holidays alone.

We are living in a Province where the going is tough; the only break we have is our long weekends. The only time we can get to spend with out families are our long weekends, we do not have money, as the lawyers in the House and the doctors and others have, to head off to Florida or Hawaii or wherever they want to go. We cannot afford to go out to Marble Mountains skiing every weekend during the winter, but we can afford to take our children out to the park a couple of nice weekends we have during the summer. We cannot afford to celebrate with our friends days that we have celebrated for centuries, days that are part of our culture and heritage. Days when we show we are proud to be Irish or we are proud to be English or whatever the case might be, but now we are starting to whittle away at these days and, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that, as I said before, it is the thin edge of the wedge that in a very few years time, we will be looking at very few government or public service holidays in this Province, especially if this government has anything to do with it. Fortunately, they may not be in power next year to make such a determination and that will certainly be to the benefit of the people, but I would ask the minister to respond to the question: why do we have committees, why was his piece of legislation sent to a committee, when we had presentations made and the majority of them represented by far the majority of the people who are opposed to the legislation, and yet no changes are made?

Why do we go through the process if we are not going to take the opinions of the people affected? Do we think we know it all? Are we trying to do favours for our rich and powerful buddies who are the owners of the large businesses in the Province? Is this what we are attempting to do, you know, are we trying to set them up the same way as we are setting up the lawyers in the legal profession, how we are helping those who are affiliates of ours? Are we setting them up as we are setting up our friends in the Newfoundland Light and Power and Newfoundland Hydro area? Are we doing that here, are we looking upon business and saying: what odds about the worker, let them go in and get their $4.75 an hour and pay half of it in taxi fare to get back and forth?.... maybe call them in for a couple of hours which is the sorrowful thing about it.

Does NAPE, does the Federation of Labour, the cohorts, the friends, the people they rub shoulder to shoulder with, the people they stood on the stage with and raised their hands, his great supporters, you know his comrades, do they not mean anything anymore when they say to this very minister: this is wrong you know, these holidays should not be taken out because there are a lot of people who are going to be very negatively affected by this piece of legislation.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson?

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

When the Legislation Review Committee that looked at this Bill in draft form last summer had a hearing in Corner Brook, I sat as a member of the committee, substituting for my colleague, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. At that session, I along with the other committee members listened to a few presentations. Chairperson, it was quite obvious from the people who spoke, representing retail businesses and workers associations, that there is considerable opposition in the Province to doing away with the requirement that shops close on Sunday. Now when I say requirement, I am referring to the status quo, the present law which prohibits universal opening on Sunday and restricts Sunday opening to drug stores and convenience stores and I believe book stores.

At the meeting in Corner Brook the people who spoke actually were under the impression that the Bill would permit Sunday opening, and there is a subclause here which I will come to in a minute, which may lead to the possibility of widespread Sunday opening. But the people who were there believed that the government's proposal would allow all stores to open on Sunday and they voiced strenuous opposition to that idea, and they talked about the danger of Sunday opening for the profitability of many retail businesses saying that: if it is a free for all, if everyone is allowed to open on Sunday, some will, likely the mainland owned chains, and competitors will be forced to do likewise. For some retailers Sunday opening will be a losing proposition, this is already a difficult period for many retail businesses and another burden added to the taxes that have been imposed by this government on top of the diminished purchasing power of consumers, may be too much for some businesses to bear.

Now Chairperson, the intent of the Bill is not to allow universal Sunday opening. As I understand it, the intention is to maintain the status quo but there is one exception and that is found in clause 2(5). Chairperson, I have before me a copy of the government's proposed amendments which I understand a representative of the government will be moving at a later stage of the Committee of the Whole examination, and I am surprised that these amendment proposals do not include deleting subclause 2(5). Subclause 2(5) -

MR. GRIMES: It does so. Read it.

MS. VERGE: The minister is saying: read it. What I have here is clause 2, as amended by deleting the new paragraph 4(1)A and replacing it with the following: The minister's clause 2 is amended by deleting the new subsection 4(5) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Oh good, and adding the following. Okay, I am glad to hear that. Okay, good, I am glad to see that, Chairperson. Actually, I had been told before I got this copy a few minutes ago that the government was going to move an amendment to delete that 2(5). Chairperson, I am glad to see that the government is going to remove that subclause from the Bill because the same as the people who spoke at the public hearing in Corner Brook, I fear that that subclause effectively would allow a free for all, would allow retailers to open on Sunday and I have other problems with it besides. So, I am glad the government is removing that subclause. Chairperson, while I can understand that the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes is disappointed that the government did not respond to all of the complaints and concerns voiced by people at the public hearings, the fact that they have made some response shows that the public hearing process was worthwhile. The process in this case is leading to a better piece of legislation and it certainly gives the people of the Province, who have an interest in the regulation of shops closing, a better feeling about the reform of the law.

Chairperson, the original government proposal was to do away with several holidays for shops closing purposes and allow shops to open on holidays when formerly they had to be closed. Those holidays were, as I understand, St. Patrick's Day, St. George's Day, Discovery Day apart from 1997, Orangemen's Day and Thanksgiving, I may have omitted something. Now, Chairperson, I do not disagree with this Bill.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: I am speaking on the Bill, I say to the Member for Port de Grave. I think that the holidays which are provided under the Bill as amended, once the amendments are formally presented, will provide for sufficient holidays on which stores have to be closed. Of course under the present arrangement, we have a general rule that shops close on Sunday and the holidays that are prescribed in the legislation. However several types of stores are permitted to open on Sundays and those holidays. At times that is hard to distinguish but somehow, even though it may not meet the test of strict logic, somehow we have a system that seems to be working reasonably satisfactorily. We have open, doing business and serving the public, convenience stores and drug stores. Drug stores nowadays can be small department stores, offering groceries, dry goods and a whole variety of goods and services. Also book stores are open on Sunday. I assume that is permitted under the existing law and I certainly approve of that. Video stores are open on Sundays and holidays, so we have operating and serving the public every day of the week and holidays, the types of shops that people generally need or want to patronize when they have spare time, during their leisure time; but we have a requirement that the other stores, the larger stores, department stores, clothing stores, grocery stores, close on Sundays and holidays, which provides a break for consumers generally who are not subjected to constant pressure to shop, and obviously a break for the shop workers and the business people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I have been recognized by the Chair, but I understand the usual procedure in the House is that at committee we go back and forth.

The hon. Member for Port de Grave, while standing - I would be quite prepared to yield to the hon. Member for Port de Grave in the traditions of the House that the Member for Port de Grave was standing and wishes to speak. I would be quite prepared to yield to him. Does the hon. member wish to speak?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I take that as a 'no' Chairperson.

I wanted to say a few more words in respect to this Bill because I was finished in midsentence when I rose last time to speak.

The concerns about the legislation are first of all in relation to the fact that certain specific holidays which have strong cultural traditions in this Province are being removed.

I suppose St. George's Day is perhaps not the one of greatest interest, or covering the greatest number of people. It is a Presbyterian tradition, which not necessarily a large, large part of the Province supports or celebrate in a strong way, but St. Patrick's Day and Orangemen's Day certainly are, and I do not think it would be fair not to recognize the full support for them - for all of them. If you are going to do one, you should do them all, and I do not think that it causes either any economic hardship.

While I appreciate that the Member for Kilbride is being sincere in his comments, I do not really think that it is legislation such as this that is holding back an entrepreneur or a businessperson who wants to get involved in business, and the fact that they have to close on St. Patrick's Day is not going to prevent a retail shop - because this is what we are talking about here; we are not talking about a manufacturing establishment; we are talking about a retail shop, to say that there is going to be a great increase in business, or even a greater opportunity for business, because all shops can be open. The fact of the matter is that the only real advantage to a shop being open on a Sunday, for example, is if all the other shops are closed and therefore they have an advantage over the others, and that is what has caused certain stores and certain businesses to take advantage of the fact that they could get away with a low fine or a fine that was not certainly a disincentive for them, and at the same time be open when their competitors were closed, so I have opposed - I do not see any reason for it.

I want to have a look at Clause 1, paragraph 2(b) of the act, permitting the regulations to exempt certain trades or businesses. I would prefer, Chairperson, and perhaps the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations can, when he speaks in this debate, identify exactly what the government has in mind in terms of declaring particular regulations exempt from the application of the act. It is such a broad power that it can allow the Cabinet essentially, to exempt virtually all trades or businesses. Virtually all trades or businesses can ultimately be exempted. I know, perhaps the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes is also concerned about this section, that by allowing the Cabinet to exempt certain businesses or shops that are declared by regulation to be exempt from the application then it virtually wipes out the whole purpose of the act because it allows Cabinet to say; well, this shop, this shop, this shop, and pretty soon when you add them all together, there will be no shops covered by the Shop's Closing Act, none at all, and that is something that should not be permitted.

I do not think that hon. members should support that kind of legislation, unless the government is prepared to be more specific in Clause 1 as to the definition of exempt shops. I think that the legislation is basically built on a self-destruct mechanism that allows the Cabinet to totally take away any power that the legislation would have to control the behaviour of businesses who want to have the right to open any time they like. In fact, perhaps what the government is doing is following in the Cabinet room, what it is not prepared to say publicly, but the Member for St. John's South is, that we are quite happy to see stores open all the time.

I would suggest that the Junior Government House Leader may want to go and have his arm checked. He seems to have some problem with it, from the elbow to the shoulder. He seems to raise and lower his hand on occasion. I am not sure exactly what his problem is but I am sure there are medical personnel within not to far a reach who could check out the hon. member. We may have to go a little further maybe, perhaps towards Bowring Park way to get the real help that he may need, but nevertheless we do have capable medical personnel at the disposal of hon. members if they need it.

I have a concern about those two particular sections, Chairperson, the ones that remove the holidays that we have. Perhaps the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations can clarify what the government response is to the complaints and concerns raised about the exemption provided in Clause Number 2, Section 4, Subsection 5, in the proposed Bill. That seems to be a creative problem for the legal interpretation of the legislation. It may well lead to a proper challenge to the legislation because of the Sunday religious observance connotation of that subsection. I would ask that the minister explain what legal advice he had on that because it seems to me that it is a concern that could well defeat the whole purpose of the legislation, the whole purpose of making sure that shops are closed on Sunday, because that is the traditional day when people have an opportunity to spend time with their families without one, two or more family members being required to be away from home because an employer decides that it is in their interest for profits sake to open on a Sunday when most working people are free from work.

Unless they work in an occupation which requires round the clock and round the week involvement, such as in the health care sector or some industrial sectors where the only way that an economical operation can be able to use the capital equipment that it has, the only way that it can succeed, is by having a twenty-four hour a day, seven day a week operation such as we have with our paper mills for the most part. In Labrador the IOC pellet mill, I believe runs - it used to, I know - on a twenty-four hour basis.

Chairperson, I think that it would be greatly appreciated if the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations would take his place in the House and explain why it is that they are arrogating to themselves the power to exempt any trade or business that they see fit, through the regulations, and what is the plan of the government in that regard? Do they seriously see this as a method whereby they can gut the entire legislation by continuing to offer further and further exemptions?

I can see a need to have, perhaps, a certain power to exempt certain kinds of businesses from The Shops Closing Act. We have seen, in the tourist trade in particular, in my district, for example, where, in the area of Duckworth Street, for example, there are perhaps a dozen or more stores mostly catering to the tourist trade, some to the Sunday leisure trade, such as the bookstores, a place called 'Word Play Bookstore' which basically caters on the weekends to a Sunday leisure trade, people browsing around, a place of business that perhaps should be made exempt from the legislation. Perhaps that little strip where there are a lot of tourist stores and gift stores that cater to the trade of people visiting, staying at the various hotels downtown for a weekend or whatever, I can see good reason to exempt some of these stores because a great deal of their trade might go on during a Sunday or a holiday or a weekend when people might be visiting the capital city for the purposes of carrying out their business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Chairperson.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson?

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you.

Actually, I was eagerly awaiting the comments of the Member for Port de Grave who said a little while ago that he wanted to contribute to this clause-by-clause examination.

Chairperson, as I said before, the government in this case, took the correct course of action by referring this draft legislation to a Legislation Review Committee. The committee did a good job of advertising and inviting public submissions. There was quite a good response. The consultation was done over the summer when the House of Assembly was closed. The committee members had plenty of time to look at the Bill and to discuss it with people affected, both retailers, employers, business owners, and workers. The result of the consultation has been government's proposals to change the Bill - proposals for amendment.

Chairperson, I think the Bill, with the amendments, is a reasonable compromise. I agree with doing away with the requirement for all shops to close on some of our holidays. The number of holidays our shops have had to close is more than the number in other parts of Canada, and some of the holidays for which businesses have had to close no longer have all that much significance for people. For example, St. George's Day is a holiday that very few people seem to attach any significance to. I would say the members here this evening would be hard-pressed to explain the significance of St. George's Day, and it happens to come at a time of the year, the end of April, when the weather is bad, shortly after Easter when there is a holiday, when people do not really need a holiday or want a holiday.

Discovery Day does have significance, especially here in St. John's. It is also known as St. John's Day, and I am pleased to see provision in one of the amendment proposals for all shops having to close on Discovery Day, 1997, the 500th. Anniversary of Cabot's discovery of Newfoundland.

Orangemen's Day is a holiday that seems to me has very little significance for people in the Province. There has been reference made to the Harbour Grace area. I am not all that familiar with Conception Bay North. There may well be people there who still observe Orangemen's Day. All I can say is that in the Corner Brook area where I live, nobody I know attaches any importance to Orangemen's Day, but since it falls in the middle of the summer people quite enjoy having the holiday. Of course under this arrangement retailers will be free to open or close. It is just that all shops will not have to close on Orangemen's Day, and I think that is a reasonable compromise.

Orangemen's Day also falls in the peak of our tourist season, and it may well be advantageous to shop owners to be able to do business on that day in the middle of the summer.

I am glad that the government is proposing to restore Thanksgiving Day to the list of holidays on which all shops have to close - shops generally have to close. Thanksgiving Day in early October is a holiday that has a great deal of meaning for most families in the Province.

All in all, Chairperson, I think the government took the correct approach to amending The Shops Closing Act. The committee did good work. The public made a useful contribution to the formulation of these amendments. Not all of the suggestions have been accepted, but that is inevitable. It is to be expected that there will be disagreements, but at least there was an opportunity for the different points of view to be aired, and the government has given an explanation for the choices that it made.

The government has been elected to make public policy and to propose legislation. We are all here, as members of the House of Assembly, to debate government's legislative proposals. It is just a shame that they waited until two days before Christmas, and the supper period at that, to give us a chance to debate these proposals in the House; but apart from the late hour and the late date of this stage of the House consideration of the Bill, I think the government has taken the proper approach to these legislative changes, and I regret that the government did not take the same approach to most of the other thirty-two bills that are listed on the Order Paper which the government is expecting us to do here this evening or tomorrow or the next day. I assume that the government will recess the House for Christmas.

Now the government does not have to do this. The government has two choices for having the House of Assembly debate and vote on the thirty-two Legislative measures printed on our Order Paper. The Premier and the Government House Leader can adjourn the House now, and have us come back after Christmas and go through these thirty-odd measures in an orderly way, meeting during the normal House meeting times, three hours a day. That way we can participate in the debate after we have had sufficient rest, when we have clarity of thought, we could have a constructive debate and end up with improved legislations or, the government, the Premier and the Government House Leader have the choice of persisting and having the House meet during the night of December 22nd and the day of December 23rd and Christmas eve, to finish off this Legislative program.

Now had the government prepared the other bills as they prepared the amendments to the Shops' Closing Act, well in advance of the opening of the fall sitting of the House on November 2nd, we would not be in this panic or they would not be in this panic today.

MR. EFFORD: Who is in a panic?

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, the Member for Port de Grave is asking who is panicking, but he and some of his friends opposite have shown signs of panic. Now I am glad to see the Member for Port de Grave back because he said earlier that he wanted to say something about the Bill and in effect, I have saved his place for him so I will sit now and listen with interest to his thoughts on this Bill.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to take a few minutes to speak on the Bill. We are just as close to the actual clauses in the Bill as the hon. Member for Humber East, in fact, hopefully we will be more relevant than she was. It is with great interest that I sit here in my chair, the eve of the eve of Christmas eve, being very conscientious of the needs of all the shop owners, all the shopkeepers in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is amazing to see the interest that is displayed in this hon. House of Assembly, the concern among the great people of Newfoundland and Labrador about this particular piece of legislation; just look at the galleries, overcrowded -

MR. MURPHY: Bursting.

MR. EFFORD: - bursting at the seams. It is amazing the concern that is all around, news media gallery, full. Left, right in the Speaker's gallery, the visitors gallery are filled to capacity, great, great interest - but let us bring it a little closer to home and see the interest - let us talk about the Member for St. John's East Extern and his great interest in this piece of legislation this evening. Where is he? Let us go next door to the Member for St. John's East Extern and it is the Member for Terra Nova, Glovertown area and he is a small businessperson himself. Now there is a tremendous amount of interest in the Shops Closing Act -

MR. MURPHY: He has a gig on George St.

MR. EFFORD: -next door to that is the Member for Torngat Mountains. Now, there is a man who is genuinely interested in this piece of legislation, so much so that he is gone to Labrador for Christmas -

MS. VERGE: No he is not, he is just having his supper.

MR. EFFORD: Just having his supper. Well, he has had a long, long, long supper. Now, let us go over to the Member for Fogo. Where is the Member for Fogo and his great interest? Then we have the great entrepreneur from Menihek; now he is really interested because he has a number of personal business interests. This is evidence enough of the interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in this piece of legislation that we must be setting down here in the House, at 7:00 p.m. on the eve, of the eve of Christmas.

MR. MURPHY: Burning the lights.

MR. EFFORD: Now we get to the hon. Member for Ferryland, the new Member for Ferryland. Now there are a lot of small convenience stores up the southern shore, a tremendous number of convenience stores and I am sure the hon. Member for Ferryland is really interested in representing his constituents and he realizes that the constituents on the southern shore are not really over concerned about what is happening in this House of Assembly tonight. In fact, if there was a poll done on the southern shore, the whole district, the 8,000 members, I doubt if one person would know if the House of Assembly sat all this week, let alone this evening.

I was out to my district a couple of nights ago and they asked me: where have you been the last two weeks, off on vacation? Another guy said to me: what time are you coming back in the district? Now, the Member for Green Bay is so interested that he said he was going to be here all night tonight and all day tomorrow but he forgot to come back. That shows a great interest. I want to go up to the end up here, in the front row, the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes and I want to ask him a question about the Blarney Stone because this has to do with the Shop Closing Act and his sincerity in talking about the $5.00 per hour -

MR. MURPHY: How many days a week is he open?

MR. EFFORD: First of all, the first question - yes, you are right, the hon. Member for St. John's South - how many days a week has the Blarney Stone been opened in the past eleven months, almost twelve months now this year, 1992? Possibly closed two days, Good Friday and Christmas Day, but he spoke very sincerely about the fact that they are open on a holiday or whatever, getting $5.00 per hour, let me ask the hon. Member for St. Mary's -The Capes, does he pay his people double time on holidays when they are opened?

MR. MURPHY: Is he opened St. Patrick's Day?

MR. EFFORD: Yes and that is the question, what about Paddy's Day? Do you actually open your business on Paddy's Day?

AN HON. MEMBER: Around the clock.

MR. EFFORD: I doubt very much if any of the convenience stores are opened or closed in St. Mary's - The Capes on Paddy's Day that it is going to deter the people from that great district of celebrating and having some fun. As the hon. Member for St. John's, the point he was trying to make, well it is not really the fact that the shops are open, that people have to work, it is really that it is taking away from the culture, from the tradition of celebrating a certain holiday. I do not think the Orangemen in Port de Grave are going to close the lodge or not play the band because the convenience store who is selling groceries down the street is open. Do you agree the hon. Member for Harbour Grace?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I think the white horse will still go out and I think King Billy will still be okay.

MR. MURPHY: That is right, they will paint him green.

MR. EFFORD: But it is interesting. Just count the number of seats we have over there, one, two, three, four. Now the hon. Member for Mount Pearl, I know he is interested because he came back this evening. He was really sincerely interested about keeping the House open because he realizes that if this particular Bill goes through with the clauses in it, it is going to be devastating for the economy of Mount Pearl. So he has committed to be here all evening, all night tonight, tomorrow morning at breakfast and I think he even offered that we would all be supplied with breakfast from one of his constituents in Mount Pearl, at 7:00 a.m. in the morning. So I will take my needle about 6:45 a.m. tomorrow morning and then we will be prepared to have the bacon and eggs.

Now, the Member for Humber Valley, well he is honest about it, he told me this morning at breakfast at the Holiday Inn, he said there is no way that he is going to be in the House of Assembly this evening. He was honest, he said it is absolutely ridiculous for us to be here in the House of Assembly debating these bills.

AN HON. MEMBER: What else did he say?

MR. EFFORD: That is not all, I will not say, divulge here, what he said about a couple of other members. That would not be fair to the hon. Members on his own side.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. EFFORD: I have not told the members that. Now, the member for Moncton is really interested, there is no question about that. In fact he told me the other day that he was going to get a special flight in here on Christmas Eve to make sure that he is here in the House of Assembly when the piece of legislation comes through, especially when it came to the Shop Closing Act. The only concern he had was getting a flight back to spend Christmas Day with his wife and then he was going to come back on Boxing Day because he knew the hon. Member for Humber East would be here on Boxing Day and he did not want her to be alone. Keep your eyes on the chair of the member for Moncton because with good luck he will be back.

Now, the Member for Harbour Main is really sincere. He has not been here the week because he is sick. He is legitimately sick and I understand that, but when I asked him how he felt he said: John, if I had to sit in that House of Assembly I would be even sicker, so I agree with him. There is no question about that. He said the only chance he would ever have to recuperate was to go back to Harbour Main. To sit in this hon. House of Assembly and listen to what has gone on here, the filibustering for the last number of hours and all last week, he said, would make anyone sick.

Let us leave the cuddly puppy dog and those strawberry patches for another time because he has his own agenda, just to be antagonizing, just to try to have some fun, he is not serious about this in any way, absolutely not. He is retiring now, his time is just about up and he just wants to punch in some time, have some fun. In his retirement days he will be able to talk about how he hung up the House of Assembly, how he kept the House of Assembly open all through Christmas. This is exactly what his intentions are. After fifteen years he is trying to get in Hansard. That is the reason he is doing this. There is no question about it. He will be able to go into retirement and tell his grandchildren how he kept the House of Assembly open during the last week prior to Christmas. That will be his complete fulfilment for fifteen years. Imagine him sitting down with a dish of strawberries telling his grandchildren that this was his full accomplishment as a politician. What an amazing accomplishment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: I want to congratulate the Member for Port de Grave on the best speech he has made since he came into this House of Assembly. Now, he never had enough time to finish because he did not mention Bev's pickles at all that time but he will have a bit more time. I am glad he got up and made his comments in this House of Assembly, to see who is here and who is interested in what is going on in this House of Assembly. That is a very important speech to make. The member was being a bit humorous but I can see a few empty seats on that side of the House, too. This being government legislation we are bringing through, thirty-two bills, hopefully sometime between now and Christmas if we can get them done, or if not we will go on and pass them. It is important to know who is here and who is interested in bringing in legislation that is going to affect people everywhere in this Province. There is nothing drastic about this Shop Closing Act. The end of the world is not going to come if we bring it in or if we do not bring it in. We should never be here debating it this time of the year. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Port de Grave. It is ridiculous. I agree wholeheartedly with the Member for Humber Valley. It is absolutely ridiculous for us to be here debating this today, on the eve of Christmas Eve. Mr. Chairman, it is totally absolutely ridiculous.

Now there was a solution to this, there was a solution and there still is I suppose but it is pretty well too late now. We are going to go on with it and that is it but there was a solution to this two weeks ago. There was a solution, there was a proposal or an agreement made up behind the curtains that disappeared, behind that little castle there that we have in front of us, Mr. Chairman. There was a proposal made that we could have gone on with our Christmas vacation, if that is what we want to call it, or gone back to our families and gone on with other things, every member opposite there and almost all of you live further away from this place, than I do. It is easier on me to be here because in seven minutes I am going to be in a car and home. I will come back out here in an hour or so if I want to and stay for another few hours but it is harder on everyone over there.

There was a proposal with some discussions from behind the Speaker's chair one day last week. I think there was, at least a week ago and the discussion between the two House Leader's: we have four bills, I believe, we have four bills on this order paper that we have some concern with. Four major bills, all the rest of them, maybe as much as six, four would have been very acceptable and I will give them credit, there was one of them moved to a committee stage, a committee that I am going to be on and that is good, that was a bit of progress. It is the House of Assembly Act, the Conflict of Interest Act I call it, but that was a bit of progress. We had four or five others that were just as important, certainly just as important to the people of this Province. Workers' Compensation Act, like I say for members opposite there, I am going to be gone out of here probably in a couple of months, I will not be worrying much about it.

The election will be sometime probably in April, May or maybe even February, the sooner the better to my mind but I will be gone out of here. You are the ones, the ones who wish to seek re-election and the ones who will eventually be re-elected, some of us here, some new people will be coming in. You are the ones who are going to have to deal with this Workers' Compensation Act. I will tell you from my experience, I do not know how you feel when injured workers come to you giving you their problems but I always felt terribly sad about it, about a person, who through no fault of their own, were injured on the job and now they will not be able to sustain their lifestyle.

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to mostly all of you, the deal that you said why we are not here. You were the one who got up here and asked why all of these people were not here and I am going to tell you that there is no need for any of us to be here. It is this legislation like the Workers' Compensation Bill that could have gone to committee, we could have heard some improvements on it, we might have - we heard some presentations on it, maybe it would be improved, maybe it would not but that was one possible solution.

There was the Police Commissions Act, which the Premier mentioned today on television as a matter of fact. Really, I find it amazing what the media, especially CBC says: the Premier is reported as saying, yes there is a difference, and I will not accuse you of saying it. But CBC television, I believe it was, on the news tonight said; the Premier says in retrospect it might have been better to put the Police Commissions Act to a committee for further review. Now, there were no questions on that, no comments, we are after going through closure in this House on it, we are after sitting almost twenty-four hours one day, we are after causing our staff misery, I would say, and still are doing it. Here is CBC, and the Premier says he did not say it, but CBC is reporting that the Premier says; in retrospect. That was the solution on those three or four pieces of legislation, committee for a week or so, come back into the House for two or three days, and bang-o, it would be finished. It still could be finished by the middle of January - that was the solution. The reason we are all here is because that wasn't agreeable to one person at the time. Maybe it wouldn't be agreeable to anyone here now. It would have been agreeable to me. I don't want to be here; if you think I am enjoying this, I can tell you, I don't want to be here. I am not looking to get elected again, to get my picture in the paper, to go on radio or on television; it doesn't matter a row of beans to me if I ever do. Mr. Chairman, all we had to do was put a couple of these bills before a committee and what is happening now would not have taken place. All of you would have been home now with your families, where you want to be, where we all want to be.

So, Mr. Chairman, that is why I say I agree with the Member for Humber Valley, on what he told the Member for Port de Grave - it is ridiculous that we are here. We could have made a deal, we could have made some arrangement. We have done it before. Every year for the fourteen years that I have been in this House of Assembly, arrangements have been made. Never before did we sit on the eve of Christmas Eve. Now, I tell you that for a fact, in fourteen years, on the eve of Christmas Eve we never sat in this House, never, never, never.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, we never did.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes we did. Now, don't fall into that trap, because we will have to bring in the records for you.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The members can agree or disagree. I remember that even in the spring sessions we could make deals, when there was no crisis, no need to be home with your family that much, you just wanted to get off for the summer. Even in May, June and July, we could always make a deal. There was always some way to do it. And at Easter, there was always -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Except once. Now, that was another man in this House, who broke the Easter deal. I don't know if it is the Premier's fault that we are here today. I can't say it is the Premier's fault.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) to Easter.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Easter it was, yes, but I don't say it is his fault that we are here this time. I think it is because of his number two man there next to him, that we are here now - just stubborn and pigheaded and didn't want to make a deal. If we could have gotten three out of the five to a committee, or made any proposal at all - but to take one, the conflict of interest legislation, which should never have come to this House without going to a committee; and, I mean, that is important legislation to everyone who is ever going to consider running for an elected position in this House of Assembly. And not only is it important legislation for the people who are going to run, it is important legislation for their families, their dependent children or any person who is living with them that could be dependent on them, a dependent relative.

Mr. Chairman, that legislation should never have come here without going through the committee. The Member for Port de Grave is right, we should not be here debating this today. We should not be here debating this on the eve of Christmas Eve. We should be home with our families where we all want to be. And we can still do that by rising the committee and reporting progress, if you want to do it. But, Mr. Chairman, if you don't want to do that, I will be here, whatever it takes. I will be here for as long as I can to give proper debate to thirty-two pieces of legislation that we will do sometime in the next week. We will get most of them through - some of them tonight, some, for awhile tomorrow morning. We will have Private Members' Day tomorrow and the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay will get his opportunity to speak. We pleaded last week to get his -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, let me say a few words in response to my friend from Kilbride. I find it unseemly to discuss what passed behind the Chair, but my hon. friend, who was not at any of these meetings, has given a version which I am prepared to believe, he believes to be correct, but which is distorted. Let me just state my recollection of it.

I have been in this House for twenty years and I have sat on both sides of the House but I have never before encountered a course of deliberate obstruction such as we are seeing here now. I don't fault hon. members opposite because they have every right to do it. They are acting within the rules and I don't fault any member for acting within the rules to express his or her view. I have too much regard for this House. I have spent too large a part of my life here to have anything except almost a reverence for the Chamber, for the debate, and for the need to follow the rules. Debate includes vigorous, hard-hitting debate, and whether hon. members agree with what I am saying or not, what concerns me is that all sides have their say. But we are in Committee stage where any two members may keep a debate going indefinitely, and that is nothing new. Steve Neary and I used to do this by the hour, for sport, the same kind of stubbornness that is now being shown by hon. members in this House. I don't fault anybody for doing it. Eventually, we sufficiently irritated Mr. Bill Marshall - who now sits in another place - that they brought in the seventy-five-hour limit on the Supply debate, the only time there had ever been a limit placed on the Supply debate in this Province. There is no limit yet on the Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed to by both.

MR. ROBERTS: It was agreed to only by the Tory members of the House at that stage.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don Jamieson.

MR. ROBERTS: No, it wasn't Don Jamieson. It was long before Mr. Jamieson came here. He was sitting in Ottawa. It was done in the early 1970s, the same as the rule of needless repetition which is found in Standing Orders. I mean, I can go through all this. I don't fault what hon. members are doing, but I want it clearly recorded what they are doing. We saw the other evening two-and-a-half hours of debate on a relatively small, inconsequential bill to allow the government to set up some health boards. It is one thing for a member to say something and make a point, no quarrel, but when we hear the same speech the eighth or tenth time, 'the chewing gum loses its flavour on the bedpost overnight' and the speech loses its bite and its efficiency. That is reflected in the way the press and the public are treating us.

MR. MATTHEWS: Sing it for us.

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my hon. friend from Grand Bank, the last thing he wants is me singing. Believe me, whatever offence I have ever given him, singing would only make it worse. I have a methodist voice. I couldn't carry a tune if it were in a basket with two handles.

Mr. Chairman, we are now getting ourselves into a very difficult position where members on both sides are digging in, and we can abuse the rules, we can all abuse the rules. The Member for Grand Bank and I have been talking behind the Chair; he identified a number of bills that the Opposition members wish to debate at length and I said, no problem. He will acknowledge that what I said to him was, whatever time you want, take it. We can almost name them: the Workers' Compensation Bill, the Police Commission Bill, the Financial Corporations Tax Bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Child Welfare Bill.

MR. ROBERTS: The Child Welfare Bill was only added today, but to list that, I have no quarrel.

- the Conflict of Interest one which we have decided to refer to a committee and the utility tax. There were four the other day, because at that stage the Child Welfare Act and the utility tax one had not come in.

PREMIER WELLS: Why are they killing time on this holiday -

MR. ROBERTS: Exactly. What I said to my hon. friend - and he will agree since we are here in the House, he will agree that what I said was something like, "'Bill', take whatever time you need on those. My understanding is that the rest will go through quite quickly." That was the arrangement, but we got in the House and that is not what happened. I do not blame my hon. friend. He is honourable, he is my friend, and I do not blame him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: He is here in the Chamber so he can contradict me if I go wrong - what I say is that what he and I agreed would happen did not happen. I am not assigning any blame or responsibility but he and I will agree that what he and I agreed behind the Chair did not happen. My friend from Kilbride can sanctimoniously spread blame where he wishes - I do not seek to assign blame, I will just simply say that is what happened.

We are in a stage now where any two members - and it is nothing new. My heavens! Steve Neary and I did it days on end, no trouble to do it. All you have to be is stubborn - not bright, not principled, not intelligent, not articulate - just stubborn, because there is a weakness in the rules and the weakness allows any two members to do this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Change the rules.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, we are now at the stage where, as somebody has said, it is the eve of Christmas eve; it is 7:30 in the evening. I don't know what is to be gained by carrying on the debate and yet, on the other hand, those of us who are sent here by the electors of this Province to be the government are not going to be frustrated by the will of two or three or four; that is not democracy. The tyranny of the minority is just as bad as the tyranny of the majority. I am not going to attempt to cut anybody off; closure motions are allowed by the rules of this House. We have used them, we can use them in Committee if we want, but if we put them into every bill, with thirty here, we will be here for months and that is not very attractive. We can keep the House sitting all night, that is not very attractive, it doesn't help any, it just demeans it.

The other night, we got on the police bill. I said I would call the bills in order and yet we spent two-and-a-half hours on a very minor bill, so I finally asked, 'Do you want to debate the police bill? Let's go on to it. We spent five hours on it and didn't even finish the second clause. Now, that is not debate, that is filibuster. It is legitimate, it is within the rules, but it ain't debate. We never did get to the issues. Hon. members opposite had no desire to get to the issues, so we had the very unseemly experience - and it didn't help anybody. It didn't help the political fortunes of the hon. members opposite, it didn't help ours, it didn't help whatever political fortunes the NDP may have, it didn't help the dignity of the House, and nobody in the Province gave a hoot.

We all privately said to each other: We get out, we go home and people will say to us, 'Are you still meeting in the House?' One of the members opposite told me he had gone home to his district over the weekend, and they asked him: 'Where have you been?' 'Oh, in the House.' And they said, 'We didn't know you were sick.'You know, let's not kid ourselves; let's not get carried away with how high and mighty we are. So what I say to my hon. friends and to the House is that we have to find a way out of this.

It is no good, the two of us standing here head on; it is the most dangerous situation I have seen. And I take pride in the fact that I am not only a member of this House, but I have some experience in Parliament, some grey hair and scars. I believe in this institution, it is a lot better than any other alternative ever found by man or woman. But in all my experience this is the most dangerous kind of situation we have. We are in an artificial time constraint, artificial in the sense that Christmas is coming and it is a time when everybody wants to be somewhere else, and for good reason.

My friend from Grand Bank is five or six hours from home. He is shortly going to have to decide whether he abandons his duty here or whether he abandons his family, a very difficult decision to take. Members are feeling they are unprincipled, now the most dangerous thing in the world, principle, you know, in this context. We are not debating the bills, we are up pathetically paddling around; it doesn't help anybody. Now, what do we do? Do the government abandon the legislative program? We are here with a mandate to govern. Does the Premier go to Government House and say: 'Your Honour, I advise you to dissolve'? That is a way out of it. Do we simply be as pigheaded as the other side? Believe me, I think I know enough about the rules to know how to do it within the rules, but does that help? Does legislation by exhaustion help?

We have the gentleman from St. Mary's - The Capes, a decent, mild-mannered, honourable person who believes in these things, up making the third or fourth or fifth speech, whatever he has made on this bill, on this same point; that is not debate. We have the lady from Humber East - she is as stubborn as any of us; I don't fault her for that but I can be stubborn, too. I mean, I have dealt with any number of people over the years. But it doesn't help anybody.

So what I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that, we should move this bill forward on its merits. Making a speech twice or thrice doesn't improve the quality of the speech. We are long past the point when minds on any or either side are going to be changed. We are stating it for history or we are stating it for stubbornness. And then perhaps my hon. friend and I can resume relations - I can speak for this side. I say to him here as I have said outside, that I have the authority of my colleagues and there are, four, six, eight, ten, twelve, fourteen, sixteen, eighteen, twenty of them here, twenty-one here, as I speak, counting myself.

MR. MATTHEWS: Maybe he has gone home.

MR. ROBERTS: Maybe, but I speak for my colleagues; they have given me the authority to speak here for them on this matter and if I make an arrangement, we will honour it. I say to my hon. friend that I hope he can make the same arrangement with his caucus. I don't ask him to make any arrangement, that is up to him, what he agrees to or does not agree to. I operate within the mandate given to me by my colleagues. But I say, otherwise, we are going to be here. The choices are all unpalatable for everybody, and above all, it doesn't help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who sent us here, in whose voice we speak, who are subject to our writ. This is not just argy-bargy we are doing here, we are making laws, statutes.

When I was downtown as a lawyer, when my hon. friend from St. John's East was downtown as a lawyer, when my friend from Humber East was out in Corner Brook as a lawyer, we were dealing with these things and people were taking them seriously. This is no way to make laws. I don't know how we are getting out of this, I have my suggestions and I will meet the hon. gentleman. But I think it has to begin with his having a mandate from his caucus to make arrangements and I will honour our arrangements, otherwise, we are on the verge - no pun meant - of a very unseemly debate which will help nobody and nothing. It won't help the House of Assembly, it won't help any political party, it won't help any individual - all it will do is demean the whole process.

If any of us think for one moment that anybody in this Province is the least bit concerned with what is going on in here right now, I tell you, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, our people, have too much common sense. The Opposition will cry political rape, ravishment, savagery, ramming, all these pejorative words, and there will be a collective yawn. The crowd on our side will be yelling obstruction and filibuster, and the will of the majority, and tyranny of the minority, and there will be a collective a yawn. Whom are we trying to kid? All we have is a -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good.

MR. ROBERTS: If I may have just a second or so, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. ROBERTS: - a group of stubborn people; and I can be as stubborn, I am no better and no worse than anybody else, scars and all. What was it Oliver Cromwell said when somebody wanted to do a portrait of him? - he said: warts and all. I make no pretence of that. But I believe in this House, and I will tell you, my fear is now that what we are doing can seriously damage the House. I don't mean the rules and all that. What has been done in accordance with the rules is in accordance with the rules, that is another story for another time. But I can tell you, this kind of mindless procedure where we have two stubborn forces - now, we can find ways out of the deadlock but none of them are very palatable to anybody. So I say to my hon. friend simply that I would hope we can find a way out of it in the way the Houses have always worked and can only work, which is, as my friend for Kilbride rightly said, by making arrangements behind the Speaker's Chair that protect the interest and allow each side to get on with the matters it considers important.

Thank you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I just want to make a few comments, not necessarily to react to what the Government House Leader said but, I guess, to agree with some things he said and to probably expound on some others. He is correct, we did discuss bills that we, as an Opposition, had some problems with. As a matter of fact, I think it was last Thursday at 12:00 I met the minister in his office and I highlighted for him at that time, six pieces of legislation that we, as an Opposition, would certainly need some time to debate vigorously, to scrutinize, because we thought, at the time, the public needed to be informed about some of those bills. We wanted the public to have input and we talked about committees and so on - he is correct. I gave him the six bills, he knows that, I wrote them down and he had them.

Having said that, I want to say to the Government House Leader, in my discussions with the Government House Leader, I always said you have to respect that it is the right of any member of this House to speak when he or she so decides or so sees fit, on whatever he or she wants to speak. The Government House Leader has to agree, I have always said that to him. Regardless of how much progress I may want to make or other members want to make, you have to respect the right of members. Everything that has gone on here, most of it, has been under the rules of the House and it has been permitted, or else we would not have gone on like this.

I have to concur, I don't think we are making sufficient progress, enough progress. The way out of it - we have our reasons for being here as we are tonight. We feel very justified in being here as we are tonight, I say to the Government House Leader. A lot of this legislation came in late. We were here for a couple of weeks when there wasn't too much substantial that came forward. You know our requirements to refer some things to committees, which didn't happen. So it is just that over the last two weeks, I guess, the matter has gotten worse, and here we are tonight now wondering how we are going to find our way out of it, because we all want to go home for Christmas. I suppose we all want to, most of us want to go home for Christmas, let me say that.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) Scrooge.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I know, we have to try and find a way, I agree. Now, how we do that - to me it seems unrealistic that we are ever going to finish thirty pieces of legislation that we have here, plus we are only on second reading of the Taxation of Utilities and Cable Television Companies. We know the problem that presents, and we are only at second reading on that. So, how we are ever going to get it finished by Christmas Eve, I don't know. I think it is a tall order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be realistic.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am being realistic, now. I am not saying I want to delay or go to Christmas Day, I am just, again, trying to be realistic. It seems to us that we have to set a goal that we want to attain by a certain time and then let us adjourn for Christmas and come back afterwards.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, whatever, but let us at least get home for Christmas Day and Boxing Day or so and come back. But if we are going to adjourn, let's adjourn for the Christmas period and get it over with. I am not saying we do it now, not saying adjourn right now, but what I am saying is let's try to be reasonable as to where we want to be at a certain time and let's keep that agreement.

Because I don't want to make an agreement that we will adjourn if we get to a certain point by whatever time, and then when we get there, say we haven't moved enough. Do you know what I am saying? Let's be honourable about it, I guess, is what I am saying. If we can reach an agreement amongst ourselves - I do not know, it may be difficult, but I am willing to try, I say to the Government House Leader. I am willing to try, and I think I sense a sort of mood or feeling here that members would like to do something.

MR. ROBERTS: Finish it up and get out of here.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, precisely, but the thing we have to remember is, somebody said that people out and about the Province don't know what is going on and don't care, but one of these days, they just might. When a piece of legislation that we are putting through this House here, goes without full scrutiny, observation and debate, and some person or group of people out and about the Province is affected in a negative way, then we will know about it - some of us will know about it. Someone will be questioned then: Why didn't you pick this up? Why did you let this go through? Why did you not inform us that this was so out of hand. That is the problem you will have. They might not care about it now for the next ten days or two weeks, but if, in six weeks time, something comes up that affects people negatively in some area of the Province, you will hear about then. So that is what we have to be careful of, and that is why I think we have to be responsible. I think that is only being responsible on our part, I say to members opposite and we cannot relinquish that responsibility.

Having said that, I don't think we should unnecessarily delay and slow things down either. So I think we will have a chat, and I suggest to the Government House Leader, why don't we recess for a half-hour now - some of us have not eaten - and let's go for a little bite to eat and have a little chin-wag about it amongst ourselves.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I am just trying to be reasonable, I am not trying to delay. I would like to have a chance to talk to my colleagues, that's all. Whether that will resolve it, I don't know, but at least I am willing to do that.

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

MR. MURPHY: He is up all the time, boy, he can't (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible). I speak from an unique perspective in this House, as hon. members would recognize, having been here as the sole representative for some time and more recently as the Leader of a party.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Whatever. Whatever prospects the party might have - as the Government House Leader has said in one of his offhand remarks and continuous put-downs which he uses when he describes hon. members' activity in the House, but whatever the prospects of this party are, and I happen to believe that they are far more optimistic than hon. members on both sides of the House would like to believe, but I will do my political work, Chairperson, and they will do theirs, but I do want to say a few things about what has been going on the House in the last couple of weeks.

I only experienced one fall session of the House previous to this one, and that was last year when, at a certain point in time, there was a coming together of minds as to what bills were expected to be passed and what the reasonable time frame was going to be, and that was carried out. That has not happened this December, and it would be very instructive to try to figure out the reasons why. Now, we have had the Government House Leader on his feet talking about his respect for the House and the principles of the House and the fact that all sides must be heard. But one of the events that triggered this whole debate and the whole farcical, to some minds, result, was something that happened in this House last Tuesday: that was when the traditions of this House were broken, when this member was refused an opportunity to speak at second reading on a bill, when there had been only one speaker - on an important bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, perhaps I have to explain to hon. members opposite.

- on the legislation, The Act To Amend The Child Welfare Act, when I rose to speak or when I was en route to my chair to speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were not in your chair.

MR. HARRIS: Chairperson, the reaction that we get from the backbenchers here is exactly what caused the reaction that we are getting in the last week. It all started there because that was when the government signalled their intention not to let people speak.

MR. REID: That is not true, Jack.

MR. HARRIS: As a member of this House I have had the opportunity to speak on many, many occasions in this House. In fact I have had opportunities to speak by leave on many, many occasions and I say I had those opportunities as a private member of this House. When I became leader of this party and took on the responsibilities of the leadership of the party I was on a consistent basis denied leave by the three reprobates and rambunctious persons in the back row who chose for their own political reasons and in some cases their own vile motives to deny me an opportunity to speak. Now, I do not consider that to be fair, Chairperson, and I do not know what the solution to that is, but that compounded with the attempts by members opposite in the government party to refuse the normal traditions of the House to allow debate to occur gave rise to a situation that I have not seen in this House before, a situation where there was not the consent on this side of the House to the process that was going on.

MR. MURPHY: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's South on a point of order.

MR. MURPHY: I do not know what verbiage the hon. member wants to use or what he does not want to use, who he wants to blame it on and who he does not want to blame it on, but I advise him with all his experience and all the dealings he has had, to withdraw the word 'reprobate' or I will guarantee him this evening he will find himself in a position where he will be representing himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Chairperson. That is the second time tonight that by implication I have been physically threatened by a member of the government back benches. The acrimony we saw in this House as a result of certain members on the government side taking a position that members on this side of the House were not allowed to speak, is what triggered off the events of Wednesday and Thursday of last week and I have not see before the kind of acrimony that occurred in this House. What happened was the government lost the confidence of people on this side of the House. Now, I do not know the way out of that is, I do not know what it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I say to the Premier and I say to hon. members opposite that there is a need for all hon. members to realize that the process can go on with the consent of all hon. members.

MR. EFFORD: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe the hon. Member for St. John's East is making all those accusations across the House and saying that last week we kept him from making a speech on the Child Welfare Act, knowing full well that the Child Welfare Act will be coming up later when there is ample opportunity. All he has done for the last several hours is filibuster on the Shop Closing Act. He is not serious about the piece of legislation. He did not want to speak the other day any more than he does tonight because if he was serious about speaking on the Child Welfare Act we would be on that piece of legislation now. He is just trying to delay the proceedings of the House of Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Would the hon. Member for St. John's East take his seat please?

The Chair sensed that there was a presentation by the Government House Leader and a presentation by the Opposition House Leader, and there seemed to be an agreement or a consensus that we would recess the House for half-an-hour. I recognized the hon. Member for St. John's East to be representative of the other party in the House to state his case. Then I was going to call for a recess. I think he as taken about the same amount of time as the hon. Opposition House Leader and the Government House Leader. So I would like to even it up and I would like for him to clue up his remarks right now.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Chairperson, and I would be quite happy to do that but as has been seen everyone listened with respect to both the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader and I have had to put up with interjections, interruptions and points of order and that is just not fair. I too am looking for a way out of this situation which we are in but I want a way out that provides honour for all hon. members. Perhaps if we recess we would get an opportunity to talk about that. We can have a way out of this mess with honour for all hon. members including this hon. member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair will not tolerate shouting across the House. If we are going to retain decorum in this House, I ask hon. members to restrain from shouting. I call on the hon. Member for St. John's East, to clue up his remarks.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Chairperson. I would hope that the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader, with some input from myself, can find a solution to these difficulties and get everybody where they want to be and have the government business done in a responsible and reasonable way with an opportunity for fair and full debate. Thank you, Chairperson.

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

MR. ROBERTS: There seems to be a consensus around the House that we should perhaps simply recess until, say 8:20 p.m., which is about a half-an-hour from now. Perhaps Your Honour would leave the Chair until 8:20 p.m. by consent of all hands?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay the Chair will resume at 8:20 p.m.

Recess

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, let me say that the break which Your Honour called seems to have been a fortuitous one. What I propose to do, with leave of members, is if I may, set forth my understanding of an arrangement that has been reached by the House Leader's from the three groups in the House. I am counting my friend for St. John's East as part of this - wearing one of his holy trinity hats - and if I misstate the arrangements, I would ask either my friend from Grand Bank or my friend for St. John's East, please to correct me.

Members may want to refer to today's order paper, which has a certain degree of relevance in them. I know that the order paper is a document more often honoured in the breach than in the observance but nonetheless here it is. In no particular order but as points come to me: we would not proceed before the new year with Bill No. 52, Order No. 4. My friend from Grand Bank agrees and I will take silence as being consent but hon. members can speak after - that is the Financial Corporations Capital Tax Act, which my friends Opposite wish to debate at some length. I have no quarrel, let them debate it and we will abide. Bill No. 68, which is the Child Welfare Act, Order No. 20, I understand there is some desire to debate it, we were prepared to let it stand until the new year but if hon. members prefer to debate it we shall debate it. I am easy either way.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, as I said when we debated the Child Welfare Act amendment on second reading, my concern is about the delay. There are apparently flaws in the Bill but they can be rectified fairly easily but I am a very worried that we have allowed so much time to pass knowing that the present Child Welfare Act reporting requirement is unenforceable and I think we have a responsibility while we are here now, to correct the flaws in the current Act and not delay it-

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my hon. friend, we obviously believe that the Bill is important or we would not have brought it into the House, but we are very flexible on it, if we can agree on amendments we will make them. We are prepared to play it either way but we have suggested some amendments. One is to allow the Bill to be brought in by proclamation. You know, we are really quite flexible on this. Maybe what we can do, if we can get the arrangement worked out is, the hon. lady and I and anybody else who wishes may meet with my colleague, the Minister of Social Services and try to work it out. All I am saying is, we are very flexible on the Child Welfare Bill, we have an end in mind because the hon. lady's advice is the same as we are giving, namely that the present section is unenforceable.

But anyway those two now. Other than that, we will deal tonight by eleven o'clock, and I will come back to the Child Welfare Act - we will deal tonight by eleven o'clock with orders 2 through 26, other than the two I have - we are on number two now, we would not deal with order number four, order number 20, we will make whatever arrangement may be agreed to in further consultations if that is agreeable. I will ask my colleague, the Minister of Social Services and the hon. Member for Humber East and the gentleman from St. John's East, or whoever wishes, to go and have a cup of coffee and see what they can work out. That is the arrangement, the agreement that has been reached by all and we would rise at eleven -

AN HON. MEMBER: No later than eleven?

MR. ROBERTS: No later than eleven, if we finish before eleven we can get time off for good behaviour, if I may. Now, Mr. Chairman, that leaves the question of tomorrow and the Utilities Tax Act and i think maybe the most helpful thing that I can say is that my hon. friend from Grand Bank and I are talking, and my hon. friend from St. John's East and I are talking, and I assume the two of them are talking to each other and perhaps over the next little bit, while the rest of you -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: - will be carrying on with the order paper, the three of us will be seeing if we can find a way out. I must in all candour tell the Committee that this is a Bill which the government must move forward to a decision this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I will tell my hon. friend about that - let us not get into it here, we can get into it later if need be-

PREMIER WELLS: It is essential.

MR. ROBERTS: He hears my leader but let us get down to what we are really differing about. I mean that is fair enough. If we are only going to fight about one or two things, let us get them up. So that is my understanding of what has come out of the half-an-hour delay; my friend from Grand Bank is nodding acquiesence, I am not speaking for my friend from St. John's East but I think he is nodding acquiesence so, that being so, I will shut up and maybe the three of us can go outside and see what we can do about the Utilities Taxation Act, if that is agreeable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the amendment of the clause (inaudible) -

MR. MATTHEWS: I acknowledge that that is what we basically agreed to, Mr. Chairman, and I just want to reiterate that I think it would be most appropriate if the Member for Humber East, the Minister of Social Services and the Member for St. John's East would get together and discuss this situation with the Child Welfare Act, it was the opinion of the members in our caucus that we should at least try to get this thing done as well. We have talked a lot about it, it is obviously very important, so the government offered to delay it, so it is a strange twist that we -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I know but I am saying you offered to delay it and we would like to have it done because we feel it is that important, so that is about it. The only thing is, the controversy still remains with Bill 73, I do not know what we are going to work out with that, we know that is in second reading, so let us move on I guess.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 1 is passed so we can go back.

On motion, clause 1, carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 2 as amended, carried.

A bill, "An Act to Amend the Shop's Closing Act." (Bill No. 22)

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

Order 3, Bill No. 47.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any amendments to this Bill?

MR. ROBERTS: I believe, have all the amendments. There are amendments to Bills Nos. 51, 54, and 70. We are not calling Bills 73 and 68 at this time but there are amendments to Bills 51, 54, and 70. I believe all hon. members either have them or have access to them, and if not the clerks have them at the table.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Co-operative Societies Act." (Bill No. 47)

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

Order 5 Bill No. 49.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax." (Bill No. 49)

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

A bill, "An Act To Abolish Certain Fees." (Bill No. 51)

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, Clause 47 as amended, carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

Clause 48 as amended, by renumbering it as Clause 49, carried.

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

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the following bills without amendment, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds In St. John's Act". (Bill No. 57)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the following bills with amendment, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law". (Bill No. 54).

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act". (Bill No. 58)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act". (Bill No. 53)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act". (Bill No. 63)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act, The Horse Racing Regulation and Tax Act, The Liquor Control Act and The Retail Sales Tax Act". (Bill No. 45)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the following bills without amendment, carried:

"An Act To Amend The Public Services Pensions Act, 1991". (Bill No. 43).

"An Act To Amend The Uniform Services Pensions Act, 1991". (Bill No. 44).

"An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland Act (No.2)". (Bill No. 69).

"An Act To Remove Anomalies and Errors in the Statute Law (No. 2)". (Bill No. 66).

"An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act (No.2)". (Bill No. 42).

"An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act (No. 2)". (Bill No. 41).

MR. FUREY: Order No. 21, Mr. Chairman, Bill No. 70, 3 clauses and there is one amendment.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Summary Proceedings Act, the Liquor Control Act And The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of Bill 70 are renumbered as clauses 2, 3 and 4. I think we should read that into the record.

On motion, amendment, carried.

On motion, clause 1, as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The bill is further amended by adding immediately before clause 2 the following: as tabled.

On motion, amendment, carried.

On motion, clause 2 as amended, carried.

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

On motion, that the Committee report having passed the following bills, without amendment, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Election Act, The Jury Act, 1991 And The Elections Act, 1991". (Bill No. 74).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Sector Restraint Act, 1992". (Bill No. 64).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act (No. 3)". (Bill No. 71).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act (No. 4)". (Bill No. 72).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act". (Bill No. 62).

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

MR. ROBERTS: It shows what you get with a real House Leader over here, with my friend from St. Barbe.

We have now come to the end of the Order Paper, and I can suggest two things. The committee on The Child Welfare Act has not come back, and the committee on The Taxation of Utilities Bill is still thinking, as I understand it, unless we have arrived at an arrangement there.

I can suggest two things. One is that we do third readings on the bills that we have just dealt with - in other words, rise the Committee, report an astonishing amount of progress, and do third readings, or we simply adjourn for a few more minutes; but I think we have these two points to resolve - what we wish to do with The Child Welfare Act and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Do third readings.

MR. ROBERTS: Do third readings?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Third readings.

MR. ROBERTS: I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that you rise the Committee, report astonishing progress, if I may, Sir, and give these Bills third reading.

The Speaker is about to take the Chair. They are coming at us from every direction, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the Committee of the Whole considered the matters to it referred, wishes to report tremendous progress and has passed the following bills with amendments. I think we will do the ones with amendments first, Bill No. 22, 51, 54, and 70. Once we do that I will call the other ones.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports that it has considered the matters to it referred and has directed him to report Bill's 22, 51, 54, and 70 with some amendments.

On motion, amendments to Bill Nos. 22, 51, 54, 70 read a first and second time.

Bills ordered read a third time presently by leave.

These bills are now read a third time and it is ordered that their titles be passed and that the bills do pass and their titles be as on the order paper.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, now I will report the bills without amendments, Bills No. 46, 47, 49, 57, 50, 58, 53, 63, 45, 43, 44, 69, 66, 42, 41, 74, 64, 71, 72, 62.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports that it has considered the matters to them referred and has directed him to report Bills 46, 47, 49, 57, 50, 58, 53, 63, 45, 43, 44, 69, 66, 42, 41, 74, 64, 71, 72, 62 without amendment.

When shall the report be received now? When shall the bills be read a third time, now?

On motion, the following bills read a third time, ordered passed, and their titles be as on the Order Paper:

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Licensing And Inspection Of Health And Social Agencies". (Bill No. 46).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Shops Closing Act". (Bill No. 22).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Co-Operative Societies Act". (Bill No. 47).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act". (Bill No. 49).

A bill, "An Act To Abolish Certain Fees". (Bill No. 51).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds In St. John's Act". (Bill No. 57).

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law". (Bill No. 54).

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act". (Bill No. 58).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act". (Bill No. 53).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Buildings Accessibility Act". (Bill No. 63).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act, The Horse Racing Regulation And Tax Act, The Liquor Control Act And The Retail Sales Tax Act". (Bill No. 45).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991". (Bill No. 43).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Uniform Services Pensions Act, 1991". (Bill No. 44).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland Act (No. 2)". (Bill No. 69).

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law (No. 2)". (Bill No. 66).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act (No. 2)". (Bill No. 42).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act (No. 2)". (Bill No. 41).

A bill, An Act To Amend The Summary Proceedings Act, The Liquor Control Act And The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All-Terrain Vehicles Act". (Bill No. 70).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Election Act, The Jury Act, 1991 And The Elections Act, 1991". (Bill No. 74).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Sector Restraint Act, 1992". (Bill No. 64).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act (No. 3)". (Bill No. 71).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act (No. 4)". (Bill No. 72).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act". (Bill No. 62.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the committee on The Child Welfare Bill have met and I think I am reflecting their consensus when I would ask that you now leave the Chair again and we go back into Committee of the Whole and deal with Order 20, Bill No. 68.

I understand that is agreeable to all concerned, so we will get on with it.

Now if my friend from Grand Bank and I can meet for a minute we will see where we will go after that.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Bill No. 68. The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Chairman, this is "An Act To Amend The Child Welfare Act".

What we are doing is making sure that the act is enforceable. Certain wording in the act now deems it unenforceable in many ways, and we are making substantive changes in the wording.

In Section 38.(1) the key operative word is 'immediately', where a person who knows about sexual or physical or emotional ill-treatment, neglect, abandonment, or desertion, concerning a child, is to report that knowledge immediately to the Director of Child Welfare, a social worker, because the director is not readily available in all parts of the Province, of course, or a peace officer, and this is to be reporting of all information - all information that an individual would know about - and that is to be done as soon as possible after receiving the information. This would include of course, as the present Act provides for, that all professionals who deal with children, health care professionals, teachers, social workers, clergy, day care centre, youth and recreation workers, peace officers, solicitor, anybody who deals with children in any way; and we are being more definitive here in section 5, subsection 4, whereas the previous act did not define it as much as we are doing so in these amendments, and it is important that we do define it and make sure that it is all inclusive and very specific as to who is to report abuse of any kind. The penalty of not reporting is a fine of $10,000 and/or a prison term up to six months and both can be imposed.

In section 11, we are saying that information or a complaint under this section may be laid or made within three years from the day when the contravention occurred. So, Mr. Chairman, the gist of the amendment is that we are substantially tightening up the requirement for reporting, making sure that all those who have cause to know about abuse of any kind are aware or should be aware that they are to report immediately upon knowledge about knowing about a case of abuse and report all that they know and do so on an immediate basis, so those are the changes, Mr. Chairman, that we are making to the Act and we think these changes are important and I believe we are ready for an amendment to the - we do have an -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Yes.

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

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, these amendments are extremely important, they are overdue. I find myself here this evening in the unusual position of pushing to have a government bill passed sooner rather than later, therefore I objected strenuously to the prospect of a delay and also to the possibility of an amendment to have a delayed proclamation provision.

Everyone in this House has known or ought to have known for at least the past two years, certainly since the Hughes' Royal Commission Report was made available, and it was given to key Ministers of the Crown a year-and-a-half ago to the rest of us six months ago, that the current child welfare act provisions requiring reporting of suspected child abuse are flawed and probably unenforceable, this Bill is designed to make the reporting requirement enforceable.

As the minister pointed out, the key provision makes it mandatory for any person having information that a child has been, is, or may be in danger of abandonment, desertion, neglect, physical, sexual or emotional ill-treatment or has been, is or may be otherwise in need of protection, to report the information to either the Director of Child Welfare, or social worker or a police officer and, Chairperson, the Bill makes it an offence to fail to report and provides for stiff penalties.

The Bill specifically applies to certain professionals performing their duties 'with respect to a child,' and professionals are listed, health care professional, teacher, school principal, social worker, family counsellor, member of the clergy, rabbi, operator or employee of a day care centre and a youth and recreation worker, peace officer and a solicitor.

Chairperson, I have not been contacted directly by The Law Society of Newfoundland, but I understand The Law Society treasurer has been in touch with the minister and has expressed some concern that the current wording of the Bill may interfere with accused persons' Charter rights to be represented by counsel.

I think The Law Society's concerns are probably well-founded, and perhaps if we had more time the minister could find a modifying clause to Clause 1, which amends Section 38.(5) of The Child Welfare Act.

Chairperson, my concern for children who are at risk outweighs by far any worry I have about lawyers and Charter rights of accused people. I think if the government had taken more care with the preparation of this Bill, and had done it in a more timely way - if it had been prepared months ago - the wording could be more precise and could clearly sustain any Charter challenge; but be that as it may, I want this Bill to go through here and now, to be in force as soon as it receives third reading and Royal Assent, without any more delay. We have had too much delay already.

Thank you, Chairperson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of amendments that are proposed. The Law Society has some concerns. I suspect their concerns extend beyond the provisions of Sections (7) and (8), which relate to responsibilities of a director in the case of a person who has failed to make a report as required under this section, to report a person to the professional body or regulatory organization to which the person belongs. Then, subsection (8) provides for an obligation on that professional body to consider disciplinary action.

I really do not think that belongs necessarily in this Bill. The procedure and need for disciplinary action should be in the statute that regulates the governing of that body, so we are proposing that Subsections (7) and (8) in the Bill as drafted be deleted and that Subsections (9), (10), and (11) be renumbered to be (7), (8), and (9) - in that order, Mr. Chairman.

The other thing that should be noted for hon. members is that it really does not alter what is in the present Bill. It makes it more explicit. The present legislation requires a person having information to report, but it is not as explicit as this.

Subsections (4) and (5) spell out specifically who is required to report, and the change in Subsection (1) requires that the reporting be done immediately.

We believe these are good changes, Mr. Chairman, and obviously it is supported.

I would ask the committee to alter the proposed Bill in the manner that the amendment -

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Chairperson.

I am delighted to be able to say that the discussions with the minister and the Government House Leader, and involving also the Member for Humber East, have resulted in a solution to the problem which would allow the proclamation, or allow the coming into force of this legislation as soon as it is given Royal Assent, because this legislation is something that has been necessary to be brought forth for quite some time now, not only by virtue of the Hughes' Commission pointing out the deficiencies in it. The deficiencies in the former section of the Child Welfare Act were quite well-known within the prosecutorial branch at least of the legal profession, and the section itself unfortunately, was very little known in the community at large because it was honoured in the breach and also, furthermore, not sufficiently publicized either in the professions who would have access to that legislation, or in the professions who would have a way of being in touch with so many of the difficult problems that children have been in with respect to child abuse, sexual abuse, child neglect and other sections.

This is, in fact, one of the most important protections that a child can have, Chairperson. One of the most important protections is that an adult is required to make sure that help is available; without that, Chairperson, a child can continue for many, many years and we know, unfortunately, of far too many cases where adults who had knowledge of events could have not only brought it to the attention of the director so that the wrongdoer could be punished, but more importantly, it could act as a deterrent to people who would be like-minded and thirdly, it could also be a way for a child who has been abused or hurt to be able to be helped and assisted to overcome the effects of what has happened to the child. So I am very pleased to say it is one of those situations where a little bit of meeting of the minds and discussion have led to an acceptable way of passing the Bill right now, without having a delayed proclamation. It is not necessary.

It is one of those pieces of legislation, Chairperson, that if there is a problem with it, this is the one you should pass now and then fix it up later if there is a problem, because of the importance of bringing this legislation in to protect children every day, tomorrow, the next day, Christmas day, Boxing day and every day from here on in. If there is a problem that the Law Society can bring up and convince the government or a court if need be, that there is something contrary to the Charter of Rights or some other ethical standards, then let it be changed then to fix up the problem, but let us not see children suffer in the meantime because a report could have been made and enforced, where the enforced duty to report was not there.

I would not want to see a single child go without the protection of this legislation and I am very pleased to support it and to see that hon. members on the government side of the House with the support of the Premier, the Minister of Social Services and the Government House Leader are quite happy to see the Bill passed this evening and to come into force as soon as it is given Royal Assent. I only regret, Chairperson, that this legislation was not amended even sooner than now.

Thank you.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to take a couple of minutes to speak to this particular piece of legislation. I will not take ten minutes. There are a couple of points I want to make, and the subject is dear to me because, in my short term as Minister of Social Services, I was very close to what was happening in the Province. I guess it was at the height of the Mount Cashel affair and hundreds of cases of child abuse being reported.

I don't want for myself and everybody else to get caught up with the idea that this piece of legislation is going to ensure the reporting of the number of cases of child abuse, but rather that it emphasize the need to report cases of child abuse.

We are getting a little away from the real issue. What we have to deal with - this piece of legislation will say, that if we are aware of somebody who knew about the incidence of child abuse and did not report it, he can be charged, but that is not the answer to protecting the child. Where we need to address the real strength in legislation - and I know the hon. the Member for St. John's East and the hon. the Member for Humber East are sincere about the protection of children, as we all are - is in promoting education on the need to report, and that is the very crux of the problem. Most people in the Province do not realize and understand, if they see something happening to a child, what their responsibilities are. So, what is needed is an education process for people across the Province, because children are being abused in this Province today as we sit here talking.

So, I understand what the hon. the Member for Humber East and the hon. the Member for St. John's East were talking about, but this legislation does not solve that. I want to take this opportunity to make that point. Children are being abused and we don't know whether there are individuals who are aware of it. If you don't know of an individual who is aware, how can charges be laid, and what is that going to really solve? So, the Minister of Social Services, bringing in this piece of legislation, is correct in doing so, however, hon. members opposite should be saying to the minister: This is important legislation but we need to go a step further. I think what the minister is saying - and as to the great urgency of getting this passed, sure it needs to be passed, but of greater urgency is the need for education.

Hundreds and hundreds - I can tell you, as can the present minister, horror stories of how children are being abused, as we sit here in this forum, in this hon. House. So, keep in mind that what we need to focus on is the broader education, the need for people to become more aware and to recognize when children are being abused by professional people, by neighbours, by everybody in the community, to learn how to recognize it and one's responsibility once it is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: I must rise again because I have to say that I agree with every single word that the Member for Port de Grave said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I say that very sincerely. He is quite correct that this is only a useful tool if people in this Province are aware of their obligations and their duty to report. This is an enforcement vehicle that makes that duty enforceable perhaps for the first time in this Province, but the real test of whether or not it is going to work is going to be how many people in this Province are aware of their obligations in this regard. So, I reiterate that for the record and make it clear to all hon. members that I agree with that point. I see it as a most important point and I would ask that before this bill goes out of the Committee stage, perhaps the minister could rise and tell the House what his plans are and what plans his department has to make sure that members of the public, for sure, because they are neighbours or friends or relatives who will know about this and who know about abuse situations - obviously, school teachers and professionals have their ways of making sure they know, but what ways does the minister have of ensuring that all people in this Province are aware of their duties other than through the kind of news coverage that this might get. I think that is an important point, and I am sure the Minister of Social Services must have ways - perhaps he can put a brochure in with all of his mail-outs or in with the social assistance cheques or any other ways that he has of communicating with the public. Perhaps he could tell the House what ways he plans to make sure that the members of the public, as well as professionals, are aware of the responsibilities under the new section 38 of The Child Welfare Act.

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

MR. HEARN: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I, too, congratulate the minister on bringing in this piece of legislation. I congratulate everyone for deciding to proceed with it now because it is needed quickly. But I just want to flag something here - a question that the minister might address in the event it causes some problems, because it has been raised to me on a couple of occasions. It mentions, where a person has information that a child has been, or is in danger of, abandonment, desertion, etc., it must be reported immediately. Then it goes on to talk about the individuals who are in a position to report. It says:

Section (4) for instance, applies, notwithstanding the provisions of another Act, to a person referred to in subsection (5) who, in the course of his or her professional duties has reasonable grounds...

Then it goes on to mention people who would be involved, and it talks about a teacher, school principal, etc., and a member of the clergy. I just wonder - here you are talking about a person in light of his professional duty, if he finds out, or comes to an understanding, that some harm has been caused or will be caused to a child - I just wonder how this can be reconciled with the seal of confession in church.

Have the clergy mentioned that, or have you discussed it with them, because I think it could be a very controversial issue whereby confessions are made in secrecy. There is a seal of confession, and we have seen movies based on it. Really, the Act, in its literal sense, is basically saying: Anybody, in light of your professional duties, must report.

I am just wondering if this is not going to cause some kind of a concern.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is, yes, I think it will cause some kind of a concern, but that is not the complete answer. There are two things.

First, it doesn't go beyond what is presently in the Act, even though what is presently in the Act is not as explicit. In its general words it would encompass confessions as well, and encompass lawyers who became aware, in their professional capacity. I think the words are sufficiently general now to do that, although arguments could be made on it.

So, in reality, it doesn't expand in principle beyond what is there now, but it makes it very clear that is included, and it gives rise to a conflict. The seal of the confessional is important and significant for people with strong religious convictions - not alone of the Roman Catholic faith, but others as well.

The right of a client to be able to go to a lawyer and speak frankly and get advice - legal advice that protects that client's interests - on a privileged basis, knowing that what he says to the lawyer is privileged, is important as well; but, Mr. Chairman, there are the rights of those children who may be subject to abuse by adult persons.

There comes a time frequently in society when you have to weigh moral values or relative values, and you occasionally have to give priority where moral values or positions may be in conflict. Abortion is a classic example, where people are absolutely rigid on both sides of the question - feel equally strongly with absolute fervour on both sides of the question. There is no absolute answer.

In this case, I think society is prepared to look at the values that it has in terms of an individual being able to seek legal advice on a privileged basis, and give information in order to get sound advice on a privileged basis, knowing that information that he gives to the lawyer is confidential and will be kept confidential and privileged.

By the same token, the freedom of an adherent to any particular faith going to the clergy and seeking absolution or consolation through the confessional, that is a value that society ought to protect and enhance as well. But when those values come into conflict, responsible members of society must make a judgement, and I believe that this is a circumstance where we have to make a judgement. Now, essentially, the judgement was made twenty-five years ago when that provision was put in the Act in very general terms.

The provision is elaborated now and is made clear. I don't think the principle is altered or expanded to any degree but it is made very clear, and some arguments that might be made against including confessions or legally privileged conversations, have been removed and the provision is clearly enforceable with considerably less difficulty than would otherwise be the case.

I believe all of us in this House have a responsibility to extend that level of protection to innocent children and I expect most members would agree.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I missed some of the House to go upstairs and get some notes and only heard bits and pieces of what our critic said with respect to the concerns of the Law Society. I spoke briefly with the Premier earlier, he will remember. Just to ensure that the representations that were made to me by a representative of the Law Society go on the record, I just want to repeat them, and I know that you have addressed some of them. Perhaps if the Premier would like to respond again if there is something he has not addressed already and is not in the record, it would be helpful. Of course not being a lawyer myself I am not going to try to attempt to point out the specific parts of the specific clauses or the wherewithals. I will just make the general concerns known publicly. I think the Member for Humber East, our justice critic, has already indicated that our choice is to proceed to support the legislation and to move on the legislation because of the welfare of the children. That is more important than anything, including the concerns of the Law Society, even though these I am sure are valid concerns at least in their eyes.

I know that some representatives of the Law Society have also talked to the minister and expressed these very same concerns. But I want to put them on record because I was asked to do so and I will do it. First of all they had some concerns with the process: the way that the Bill was developed in their view, with little consultation. If they had had more time to deal with it they would have had more time to perhaps point out some of the flaws they saw, and maybe get answers to the concerns they have.

MS. VERGE: It was only printed a week ago.

MR. SIMMS: It was only printed a week or so ago. So that was the first point they made.

Secondly, they made the point that they feel the legislation would take away the right to retain and instruct counsel. I think that has been addressed partially earlier in some of the discussion, but that was a second concern of theirs. We have also heard about the discussion concerning their concerns about the legislation being contrary to solicitor/client privilege. I think that has been partially addressed. But again I want to put it on the record because they made the representations to me so I am going to do it. Related to that they have the concern that the legislation could very well be contrary to the Charter of Rights. So they make that point.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The solicitor/client privilege issue - contrary to the Charter of Rights issue -

MS. VERGE: I mentioned that.

MR. SIMMS: - which I think the Member for Humber East might have mentioned. They also made the point to me that no other province has this kind of legislation or restriction putting the lawyers in this category. They say no other province has that, so I am told.

They also make the point that eight other provinces specifically -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: They said eight other provinces specifically exempt lawyers. And the final point they made was that the argument that was used or has been used, publicly by the minister maybe, or somebody speaking on behalf of the government about really what is in there now, is something that has been there for many, many years. Well the point they make to me is that, without getting into detail, they simply disagree. They do not think that is accurate, that what you are saying is not accurate. Now there are lawyers -

MR. ROBERTS: Would the hon. gentleman yield for a minute?

MR. SIMMS: This gentleman was a lawyer -

MR. ROBERTS: Would you just yield for a moment?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, of course.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. I do not want to criticize my fellow members of the Bar, but I will assure the Leader of the Opposition that that has been there for twenty-five years and I know because I am the guy who moved it in this House when I was Minister of Public Welfare in 1968.

MR. SIMMS: As I said I am the messenger in this particular instance and the message comes from a lawyer. So if the minister would like to consult -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) legal advice.

MR. SIMMS: Perhaps if the minister had consulted with the Law Society on what was one of their major concerns on this particular Bill before, he may have been able to eradicate that particular concern. But all I can say to him is that as late as yesterday a representative of the Law Society made that point to me and I did not debate it with him because I was not thoroughly familiar with the point that he was trying to make.

So those are the representations that I received. I wanted to put them on the record. Maybe the Premier could respond and put the responses on the record as well?

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Chairman, there are two aspects of this that could impact on lawyers, and I suppose one of them has two parts. First, here is 38 (1) as it is at this moment: A person having information of the abandonment, desertion, physical ill-treatment or need for protection of a child, shall report - mandatory - the information to the director or a social worker.

Now, I know some members will find it difficult to believe, but lawyers are persons. It doesn't matter that you are a lawyer or a priest or a clergy of any other faith - it says, 'a person', and it encompasses everybody - has that obligation now under penalty of fine, or imprisonment or both. So it is very clear. There is no question, that principle is there.

Now, what does the new one do? Here is what the new one does.

The new one elaborates to a degree: 'Where a person has information that a child has been' - and we get into real legalese here - 'is or may be, in danger of abandonment' - same word - 'desertion' - same word - 'neglect', that wasn't there before, 'physical, sexual or emotional ill-treatment', so they have added 'sexual or emotional ill-treatment', it was all encompassed in the word, physical ill-treatment.

Now, sexual abuse of a child is physical ill-treatment by any standard of judgement so, essentially, all of that was there before, but it has been made abundantly clear now - 'is or may be, otherwise in need of protection, the person shall', and here a new word is inserted - 'immediately', no delay. Now, 'immediately' wasn't there before, 'immediately' has been inserted into it now -

'report the matter to the director, a social worker' - and here is a new addition - 'or a peace officer'. And any peace officer who gets such information is required to pass it on to the director or a social worker, so it tightens it up.

MS. VERGE: Subclause 4 (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes. I said there were two concerns for lawyers, that one, and one of them had two parts. Now, this one has two parts.

Now, subclause 4, expands on that in terms of lawyers, teachers, clergy, peace officers, rabbis, operators or employees of day care, etc., and it spells out that this section applies, notwithstanding the provisions of another Act, i.e. The Law Society Act or any statute of the Province. We cannot set aside the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or we cannot set aside a federal statute. But this section applies notwithstanding the provisions of another Act to a person referred to in subsection 5, who, in the course of his or her professional duties, has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child has been, is, or may be in danger of abandonment, desertion, etc. So, any one of these persons listed in subsection 5, who in the course of their professional duties - so it makes it abundantly clear that the person referred to in subsection 1, includes a person who comes by that information in the course of professional duties in these capacities.

A health care professional, a teacher, school principal, social worker, family counsellor, member of the clergy, rabbi, operator or employee of a day care centre and a youth and recreation worker, a peace officer and a solicitor; so it makes it very clear that all of those persons who come by that information that may otherwise be confidential or privileged under the terms of some other statute, or there may be some prohibition against reporting it under the terms of some other statute, is still required to comply.

Now, the existing Section 38.(1) doesn't go that far. It doesn't explicitly spell that out, although clearly, there is no exception for such a person and it is all-encompassing. Therefore, lawyers are concerned that what we are doing now puts it beyond doubt, or beyond argument, that lawyers are included. So that is a concern that they have.

The second concern that lawyers would have with what is being done now is that where the director has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has failed to make a report as required under this section, the director shall report the person to the professional body or regulatory organization of which the person is a member, or that governs the professional status of that person.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Okay. No, I know, but this is an area where The Law Society would be concerned. There is an additional responsibility - the hon. member may not have mentioned it - that may come as a shock to them. The Law Society has some concerns other than the ones they mentioned to the hon. member. That is a concern that they would have, too, because it gets into the professional regulations. So those two subsections, (7) and (8) have been removed because they are not necessary, not essential, to the efficient working of the statute.

Mr. Chairman, the other argument they made is that it will inhibit the right to retain and instruct counsel. I don't think it will. Just stop and think about it. When does a lawyer become aware of a person who may be accused or who may be subject to prosecution for sexual abuse of a child, for example, or any kind of...? In all probability, after an investigation is under way by the police, or even a charge is laid. It is not very likely that an individual is going to walk into a lawyer's office and say: Nobody ever knows it, and nobody is ever likely to find out, but I abused a child two years ago - and the lawyer would then be required to report it. That is a highly improbable, although theoretically possible, situation.

The most probable circumstances are where the charge is laid - where a person has been accused of some kind of an abuse of a child and he needs legal advice and legal assistance. Reporting is redundant then. It is done. It is known, so theoretically it is not necessary.

So I don't think it is going to inhibit the right to retain and instruct counsel of an accused person. I just don't see how it is going to do that. I suppose there is some argument that it could, but I think it is more theoretical than real.

They also note that we are the only province doing this specifically. I think that is probably correct. They also note that eight other provinces specifically exempt lawyers from that. That is probably also correct. Is it the right thing to do? That is the question that we have to ask ourselves.

I understand the position of lawyers on the issue. I am one myself. I have a concern about this, but I have to measure where the greatest concern must be, and I believe that in this case, the overriding concern must be the protection of the interests of those small children.

I don't think there are so many circumstances where some individual who hasn't been accused, hasn't been charged, but is in the course of seeking legal advice, goes to his or her lawyer and says: By the way, in the process of doing this, that, or the other thing, I abused some child.

So, the right to instruct and retain counsel is really hardly in jeopardy, and if there are any conceivable circumstances where it might be, they are so few and far between that we shouldn't get too exercised about it, when we weight that against the importance of protecting the interests of innocent children who are otherwise exposed to this.

I think that addresses all of the concerns that the hon. member raised.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

I listened with interest to the Premier's expressions of concern for the welfare of innocent children. This seems to be a newfound concern on his part. I remind the Premier that the Hughes Royal Commission called for several amendments to The Child Welfare Act -this bill addresses but one recommendation. I would urge the Premier to practice what he preaches and to instruct his minister and the staff of the government to set to work immediately, completing the revision of the whole Child Welfare Act to incorporate the other recommendation of the Hughes Royal Commission Report and also, at long last, to close the gap in the entitlement to services of young people between the ages of sixteen and eighteen.

The current legislation says that only young people up to age sixteen are children, entitled to the protections afforded children. The legislation says that people have to be eighteen to have an entitlement to services afforded adults, there is nothing for young people between sixteen and eighteen; some of them fall into that crack in the legislation. And the Premier has known about this for at least the last couple of years, because I have been bringing it up. I have actually offered to the present minister and the previous minister to put a quick and simple amendment through the House of Assembly to close that gap and we are still waiting.

Now, the excuse back in the spring of 1989 was that the government had to complete overhauling the whole Act, and that excuse was repeated in the fall of 1989, the spring of 1990, the fall of 1990, and early 1991. The government got the final report of the Hughes Commission in May of 1991, and a week ago the government produces this bill. Now, when the Law Society say they have some concerns about it, they get a hearing fast and prompt from the minister and the Premier and they get action. The government were proposing to delay this altogether, to take it off the Order Paper; that was part of the deal offered. Then, they wanted to proceed with a delayed proclamation clause.

Now, the Premier is saying, in response to the Law Society, he will take out subclauses (7) and (8), requiring the Director of Child Welfare to report alleged failure to comply with the reporting requirement of the Act to a professionals governing body. Now, I don't quibble with that deletion, I am simply pointing out that the Law Society have much more power in this Province than the children or the advocates of children, the interagency working group on child abuse, the women's centres, the crisis shelters, all the advocates for children. The moral of the story, Chairperson, is the next time we want legislation to be properly processed and referred for public hearing, we should call the Law Society, that will get results for us.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Chairperson.

I want to make a few comments about some of the concerns that have been raised, particularly with respect to the conduct of lawyers, and as the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes has raised, the question of clergy or priests and the seal of confession.

These are legitimate concerns. I know the Premier has said - and the Premier is quite right - most lawyers don't become aware of child abuse situations from an accused person, let's say, until that person has been, in fact, accused, in which case the Director of Child Welfare, or the social worker or the police already know about it. It doesn't seem to me that there would be an obligation, in those circumstances, to go and tell the Director of Child Welfare when it is quite clear the Director of Child Welfare already knows.

I think the question from the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes raises a far more obvious situation, where a person may well - and as the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes well knows, I don't know about other hon. members who were raised in the Catholic faith, it is a well-known situation that devout Catholics may well go and confess to a priest something that the police may have no knowledge of whatsoever, or other officials may have no knowledge of, and it is a part of the Catholic faith to engage in these confessions as a part of their sacrament. In those circumstances, there is a legal obligation on the part of clergy or a priest to breach the seal of confession, which is another solemn oath that the priest has made as a part of his ascendancy to the priesthood, or ordination, as it is called.

In section 8 of the Newfoundland Evidence Act, we do say that a priest in this Province cannot be compelled to give evidence of something that is told to him under the sacrament or whatever - I don't have the legislation in front of me - in the confessional, in any event. I think it applies to priests and other clergy. It applies to all clergy, I think, although I don't know if it defines clergy. But it applies to priests and all clergy who are told that. This is a change from that.

I think it is a situation which, in fact, positively requires a priest or other clergy to, in the case of a priest, break the seal of confession, which is part of his solemn oath. It is a very significant moral dilemma. I don't know the solution to the problem, Chairperson, and maybe, with some consultation or discussion, a solution can be found, I don't know.

My position on this legislation here and now is that we must have legislation that is enforceable right now and that if it needs, after consideration and perhaps representations from others, some modification, then we can do that sort of thing later. I am concerned because this seems to me a kind of legislation that the government - it is almost as if the government went down a checklist and said: We had better not get out of the fall session of the House without having this legislation in place, because otherwise, we are going to pilloried from one end of the Province to the other for failing to act on a legitimate concern.

This legislation was only brought before the House a couple of days ago and there are already a couple of amendments. I don't have any objection to the amendment in removing sections (7) and (8). What concerns me is that we have some legislation in place that is strong enough to be enforceable. If there are some problems with respect to solicitors, if there are some problems with respect to other rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if there are some problems with respect to the dilemma of conscience of a priest when confronted by this moral dilemma, I say, it wouldn't be the first time, Chairperson, that priests were confronted with moral dilemmas, and they will have to resolve them unless they can convince the government or the Legislature to change this legislation.

Thank you, Chairperson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. member that I don't think there is any real legal problem here. Section 8 of the Evidence Act talks about compelling a clergy person to give evidence, compelling a member of the clergy or a priest to give evidence. There is no conflict so let's not get too exercised about it. It is a matter of an obligation of all people, without exception, to report child abuse - it doesn't matter who they are. The Evidence Act is the compellability of clergy to give evidence and it is not really a major problem.

MR. ROBERTS: It doesn't apply in criminal matters, anyway.

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

MR. GULLAGE: I was asked to respond to a couple of points earlier and I will do so quickly, Mr. Chairman.

The Member for Port de Grave and the Member for St. John's East both raised the same point, and a good one, that these amendments to the act will be of very little use to us if we don't make sure that people are aware of what we are doing and aware of the need for reporting throughout the Province. I want to assure both members that, indeed, we are taking steps to make sure that child abuse of all kinds is reported. We started some time ago - and the former Minister of Education can attest to this - in co-operation with the Department of Education in making sure teachers were well informed of the need to report abuse. The NTA has been involved with us in an education program and, throughout the Province, a large number of the cases that have been reported to us are coming through teachers and through the schools. The numbers have improved dramatically because of the education program we have ongoing. We are doing the same thing with mail-outs and every avenue we can take, Mr. Chairman, in making sure that an education program is carried out. The other point that was raised was concerning the notwithstanding clause, Section 4, 'notwithstanding the provisions of another act'. Now, I think the Premier spoke to that quite adequately when he mentioned that notwithstanding other acts means acts such as the Law Society Act. I mention also the Hospitals Act, the Institutions Act, and acts such as that, where other professionals are, indeed, involved and are in contact with children. It is very important, notwithstanding those acts, that all of those provisions would apply.

Mr. Chairman, I think these amendments are very worthwhile and I want to thank the committee for the great discussion we have had.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Child Welfare Act." (Bill No. 68)

On motion, amendments carried.

On motion, Clause 1, as amended, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I ask that you rise the Committee and report the penultimate progress we have achieved, all the progress that any member could reasonably expect tonight, including even Government House Leaders, and ask leave to sit again, Sir.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill No. 68 carried with amendments and ask leave to sit again.

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

On motion, amendments read a first and second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Child Welfare Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 68).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, through whatever mysterious process that God moves in wondrous ways Her wonders to perform, we have come to the point where I understand I have unanimous consent of all present in the House to move an amendment to the Standing Orders, that notice will be waived and that we will deal with this without debate, and if two-thirds of those here present, Sir - there being a quorum - two-thirds present approve it, it will take effect, according to its terms.

I move that Standing Orders 2 and 14 - and parenthetically, let me say that 2 is the time of sitting and 14 is the regular order of business - that Standing Orders 2 and 14 be amended to provide that the House shall meet at 10:00 a.m., tomorrow, 23 December 1992; again, parenthetically, this will apply only to tomorrow, 23 December 1992, and that after Routine Proceedings have been completed, the sole Order of the Day shall be the consideration of Bill 73 - parenthetically, that is the Utilities Tax Bill that will receive such wide support from members in the House - and that at 5:00 p.m., all questions that must be decided in order to conclude consideration of Bill No. 73 shall be decided forthwith, with the intent that the bill be read a third time, if that be the will of the House.

Mr. Speaker, let me add two other things. We would propose to ask His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, to attend tomorrow and to consider giving royal assent to some bills. The Clerk, I assume, has been in touch with His Honour's private office. Secondly, we would propose, at 5:00 to move the adjournment of the House in the usual form until the call of the Chair - you know, the usual motion. I will consult with my friend, the Opposition House Leader, and my friend from St. John's East, tomorrow. That would be our proposal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I move the amendment. In so doing, may I thank hon. members for what has been an enlightening experience for me and for all of us in the House, I hope.

On motion, amendment carried.

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