Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 26 November 2002 (44th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 35)
2002-11-26
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November 26, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 35
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was very pleased recently to attend the 28 th annual Fireman's
Ball of the Burin Volunteer Fire Department. For forty-one years the Burin
Volunteer Fire Department have been dedicating their time and energy to not only
protect the community, but also educating residents about fire prevention.
While I recognize all of the firefighters of the department, Mr. Speaker, for
their efforts, I want to send a special tribute to Clarence Mitchell, who
celebrated thirty-five years of service with the department and was honoured at
the ball.
Clarence is no stranger to anyone and his voice is often heard on Marystown's
radio station, CHCM, on public service announcements promoting fire department
initiatives. Clarence has also contributed greatly to the heritage of Burin area
through his involvement with the Penney Folk dancers.
On behalf of all members of this House, I congratulate Clarence for
thirty-five years of service with the Burin Volunteer Fire Department, and
congratulate Chief Terry Walsh and the rest of the department for their efforts
in prevention of fires in the Burin area.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to compliment the administration and
teaching staff at Mary Queen of the World School, as well as the Father John B.
Kent Council of the Knights of Columbus for their partnership initiatives in
trying to foster and enhance literacy at the primary grade levels.
Students who are experiencing difficulty in reading and writing will receive
volunteer assistance in word recognition, sentence context and spelling under
the direction of school personnel but in a program partnership involving
nineteen adult volunteers from the community. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting
that all nineteen volunteers, fifteen men and four women, are all retirees and
their sole objective is to make a difference in the lives of young children for
whom learning to read and write is often a challenge.
More than sixty children will be participating in the learning program which
will be available each afternoon, Monday to Thursday of each school week.
The Principal of Mary Queen of the World, Jim Brazil, and the teaching staff
are to be complimented and encouraged for their participation in this
initiative. Noel White, a retired educator and an outstanding community leader
is helping to coordinate the program.
The volunteers from the Knights of Columbus and the Ladies Auxiliary are
looking forward to assisting our youngest learners become successful readers.
For these children, this initiative is crucial to their being able to
maximize their learning opportunities. Each and every child, Mr. Speaker,
deserves the opportunity to achieve and to reach his or her potential.
Mr. Speaker, my congratulations to the teachers, the administration and to
the volunteers from the John B. Kent Council of the Knights of Columbus and to
the Ladies Auxiliary. We wish them every success and we hope that their efforts
will encourage others to partner with our schools in providing learning
opportunities for our young children.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Centre for Nursing Studies in St. John's will be
developing an auxiliary nurse-training program in four Central American
countries; El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.
The CNS is operated by the Health Care Corporation of St. John's and will
work with Memorial University's Telehealth Education Technology Resource
Agency, the Canadian Nurses Association and educational institutions in the
Central American countries.
This program, which will be delivered through distance learning to field
sites in rural communities, will help provide a cost-effective solution to
primary health service delivery in some very poor areas.
In undertaking this work they will receive $4 million over six years through
the Canadian International Development Agency. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a
fine example of how people from this Province can expand our range of
involvement internationally. It is an example of how we can both teach and learn
from the international community.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Centre for Nursing Studies for undertaking
this very important project and for the innovation they have shown in pursuing
international opportunities.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Friday, November 23, I had the opportunity to attend the graduation of St.
Catherine's Academy on Salmonier Line. A great night for the St. Catherine's
Academy school community, almost 450 people in attendance with thirty-three
graduates graduating. It was a night filled with anticipation, scholarships and
awards that were passed out to deserving students; thousands of dollars worth.
With the great community support that St. Catherine's receives from the
outlying communities, this was able to be done, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Principal Gary Corbett,
the staff of St. Catherine's Academy and, indeed, the entire school community
on another great night of pursuing excellence From Here to Eternity at St.
Catherine's on Salmonier Line.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible) member's statement with respect to a
constituent (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Premier have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has produced many notable athletes who
have brought home regional, national and international titles. These athletes
continue to proudly represent this Province, some as star athletes on
scholarship at Memorial University, and other universities including other
provinces of Canada and the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the Members of the House of Assembly
that the commitment and hard work of another athlete has led to a remarkable
achievement.
Paul Andrews is from Point Leamington, in the Exploits District. Paul
acquired an interest in the sport of arm wrestling several years following his
graduation from high school. To his credit, Paul has two Canadian National
Championships for arm wrestling and finished fifth at the World Arm Wrestling
Championships held in Finland in 2001.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to report that at the World Championships in St.
Louis, Missouri, held in mid November of this year, Paul Andrews defeated a
challenger from France to win the World Arm Wrestling Championship in the
lightweight division.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: This is an exceptional accomplishment of which Paul and
his family are extremely proud. Paul has represented this Province and our
country with great spirit and ability. He is yet another ambassador of
Newfoundland and Labrador who is very proud of our Province. I join with him,
his family and friends in Point Leamington, in extending our heartfelt
congratulations.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to take this opportunity to welcome to
the House of Assembly today, Mr. Graham King, Mayor of Millertown, and his wife
Elizabeth.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to
announce that government has agreed to a medium-term solution regarding
ninety-nine-year non-renewable timber licences for Abitibi Consolidated.
Government considered and explored various options and has agreed to
harmonize the expiry dates of all of the company's thirty-eight non-renewable
timber licences to 2010. This will result in the rolling back of the expiry
dates of the longer term licences to 2010 and government extending Abitibi's
earlier expiration dates to the 2010 common expiry date.
Mr. Speaker, some of the licences went right on to 2021. One was due this
week, a few more in the next few weeks, but now we have all 2021 back to 2010
and the other three or four licences extended out to 2010. So, in 2010 we can
deal with all the licences for Abitibi Consolidated in the Province.
The 2010 common expiry date is contingent upon the company maintaining its
current production levels at the Grand Falls-Windsor Mill -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WOODFORD: - which includes, Mr. Speaker, a two machine operation and
maintaining annual production levels at substantially the same levels as those
in the preceding three years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WOODFORD: I will be tabling legislation to seek amendments to the
Forestry Act and to facilitate the 2010 common expiry date initiative.
Harmonizing the non-renewable licences' expiry dates to 2010 will allow
ample time for continued research on future land tenure systems, as well as
comprehensive public consultations and input from various government
departments.
This agreement demonstrates government's commitment to a sustainable forest
industry and environmental integrity of our forest ecosystem, as well as Abitibi's
commitment to its employees and the Province.
Harmonizing the timber licences will, in the short to medium term, provide
security for Abitibi mill workers and communities which depend on the industry.
It will also remove short-term uncertainty for the company regarding fibre
supply at the Grand Falls-Windsor mill.
It is also important to point out that in addition to providing security for
Abitibi mill workers, the 2010 expiry date will provide stability to the sawmill
sector, which is involved in a co-operative arrangement with the company.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleague, the Minister
of Labour, for her diligent work in improving the labour relations climate
between Abitibi Consolidated and the union. Government will continue to provide
support, where required, to maintain sound labour relation practices at the mill
in Grand Falls-Windsor.
Mr. Speaker, implementing a new land tenure agreement with Abitibi
Consolidated that furthers its goals and objectives of modern and sustainable
forest ecosystem management is a priority for government.
I wish to make it clear, however, that government is proud of the stride it
has already made in delivering modern forest management practices. We have very
progressive forestry legislation which requires licence holders to manage the
resource on a sustainable basis using sound ecological principles.
Through implementation of responsible forest management practices we will
ensure the future viability of our forest industries which are valued at over
$800 million and employ more than 10,000 people annually.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for forwarding a copy of his
Ministerial Statement.
A lot of questions in our forest industry today are not being answered. I say
to the minister: Why has it waited so long for an agreement to be reached? Why
has it waited until now, the last minute, to have an agreement on probably
one-third of the company's tenure with no consideration made to other
stakeholders in that industry? Other stakeholders have to wait up to eight years
to have input now into an agreement that could affect them and probably close a
lot of small businesses in rural Newfoundland today.
I say to the minister and the government, if this agreement expires and there
is a new agreement negotiated with consideration and consultation with other
stakeholders in the industry, then I certainly welcome that and agree that would
be a good thing for the industry.
With respect to the long-term commitment by the company of Abitibi
Consolidated to the Province and the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, I welcome
that. I say this a good thing that we need a commitment from the company and
from the government to ensure that number seven and number three paper machines
continue producing in Grand Falls-Windsor, and that there is a stable forest
supply for the company in Grand Falls-Windsor. I agree that this is an important
issue for the company. I agree that steps must be taken and agreements must be
made to ensure the viability of this company. So, I do congratulate the minister
and the government for taking the steps to see that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUNTER: It is just that I am disappointed that it took so long. I am
disappointed that other stakeholders have not had a say into what could happen
in the next eight years. We need more consultation with the public.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The expiry of these leases did not sneak up on the government; this is
something, obviously, that has been coming for years. There was plenty of
opportunity for public consultation amongst the various stakeholders for input
from everybody and to look at alternatives before this particular first lease
expired for over 300,000 hectares of land. The government failed to conduct
public consultations. While we welcome the stability that is going to be
existing for the next seven or eight years in the Gand Falls mill, what we see
absent from this particular decision is the kind of public consultation that is
required now and is going to be even more so required, Mr. Speaker, when all of
these leases expire. It looks like there is going to be a need for a full,
entire public consultation to look at the alternatives. There are lots of people
who have an interest in the forest lands of our Province, and there have been a
lot of changes made in considerations -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: There has been considerable change in understanding of how
forest ecosystems work, and there are modern ways of managing forests that can
produce excellent results for commercial users, as well as preserving much of
the forests for community uses and alternative uses.
Mr. Speaker, while we have seven years, we shouldn't wait until
six-and-a-half years to have another short-term consultation or discussion, and
a decision made, without full public hearings and full public consultation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform this hon. House that the Premier will be
travelling to Happy Valley-Goose Bay on Wednesday to host a round table
discussion on the proposed Gull Island project.
I will chair this discussion, Mr. Speaker, and we will be joined by my
Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Torngat Mountains, the Member for
Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and also the Member for Labrador West. This will be
an in-camera session, by invitation, and will include community leaders from
such organizations as Labrador's various Chambers of Commerce, Regional
Economic Development Boards, Aboriginal groups and the Combined Councils of
Labrador. The MP for Labrador has also been invited to participate.
The purpose of this round table discussion, Mr. Speaker, is to consult and
provide information on the proposed project, as well as to clarify issues that
have been raised in relation to the Alcoa discussions of some months ago.
Mr. Speaker, as indicated in this year's Speech from the Throne, this
government firmly believes that the next few years will belong to Labrador. We
have seen tremendous progress in Labrador on a number of fronts, Mr. Speaker,
mainly because we have consulted with and included the people of Labrador in our
decision making. It is important that we listen to what the people of Labrador
have to say about the Gull Island project, so that we can work towards meeting
their expectations.
I want to thank the Premier for his continued commitment to listen to the
concerns of the people of Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege today with
respect to this Ministerial Statement. I want to say from the onset that the
critic, the Member for St. John's East, has graciously given me the chance to
respond.
While we, on this side of the House, congratulate the people of Labrador for
pushing the issue, particularly related to Gull Island, and have forced the
government to hold consultations before a decision was made, we also must point
out that members in this House, each and every member, enjoy certain rights and
privileges equally.
Mr. Speaker, it says in Beauchesne , that a question of privilege must
be brought to the attention of the House at the first opportunity. I believe I
have satisfied that. It is our view that the government, in inviting and being
selective about who they choose to bring into the fold, or who they choose will
get the information related to the Gull Island project, has impugned and
infringed upon every member's right in this Legislature who has not been
provided with that opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I commend the Member for Labrador West for
being invited, and I hope that he brings what he always brings to the process,
honesty and integrity to the issue, but, Mr. Speaker, it is simple this: that it
is not good enough, according to Parliamentary Privilege in Canada Joseph
Maingot -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: I am on a point of parliamentary privilege and I would like
to finish it, Mr. Speaker, if I could, uninterrupted by the cattle calls from
the opposite side of the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in inviting the Member for Labrador West, as a
member of the Opposition - and we commend that, we agree with that - but in not
inviting other members of this House, we believe, according to the definition,
that the invitation by government prohibits and infringes upon our ability, as
the Official Opposition, to do our parliamentary work.
All of this week, the Premier of the Province has accused the Leader of the
Opposition of fearmongering and scaremongering, and now an opportunity presents
itself, Mr. Speaker, to be invited to such a consultation to inform each and
every member equally of what is contained in the deal.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote for all members. "Alleged acts must relate to
a member's parliamentary work:... But it is because of its nature that the
valid question of privilege arises only infrequently. There must be some act
that improperly interferes with the member's rights, such as his freedom of
speech or freedom from civil arrest. The interference, however, must not
only..." - and this is the important point, Mr. Speaker - "...obstruct
the member in his capacity as a member, it must obstruct or allege to obstruct
the member in his parliamentary work."
Mr. Speaker, secondly, for further consultation: "Parliamentary
privilege is the necessary immunity that the law provides to members of
Parliament, and for members of the legislatures of each of the ten provinces and
two territories, in order for the legislators..." - meaning us -
"...to do their legislative work."
"Because of its nature, a true question of privilege should arise in the
House only infrequently. To constitute "privilege" generally there
must be some improper obstruction to the member in performing his parliamentary
work either in a direct or constructive way...".
Mr. Speaker, we believe, and we assert here for you to rule on, that inviting
only one member of the Opposition, while we agree with that, obstructs the rest
of us from doing our work, as we are supposed to do. Mr. Speaker, we ask you to
rule because this act is contemptuous.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Opposition House Leader knows very well
that this is not a point of privilege. A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, as he
pointed out, is something that is raised rarely in parliament. The reason why it
is raised rarely, Mr. Speaker, is because a point of privilege is so
circumscribed and so restrictive that very often when hon. members rise on a
point of privilege it is not a point of privilege, it is just a matter of making
some political point, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I submit that in order for a point of privilege to
be valid that it must affect first of all a member's ability to do his work.
There is nothing in the announcement made by the hon. minister today that will
affect a member's work.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it refers to the collective rights of the institution.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the ministerial statement that affects the
collective rights of hon. members in this institution. If that were so, Mr.
Speaker, government would be so circumscribed, so restricted in its efforts that
it would be able to do nothing.
What the minister announced today is a meeting in Labrador, in Goose Bay, to
have discussions related to the Gull Island project. Nobody knows what the
nature of the discussions would be now. If it were known that - if it were said
that the Premier was going to release the details of the deal, even that would
make it a little different, but I would not even subscribe that that would be a
point of privilege. The government is permitted to consult with groups of their
desire.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this that affects the parliamentary
privilege of either a member or of the institution. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that
this is one of the most specious and spurious points of privilege that has been
raised in this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the point of privilege raised under
advisement.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly look forward to going to Goose Bay tomorrow and taking
part in
these discussions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Don't clap too loudly yet, I am not finished.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is
incumbent upon this government, in keeping inline with their open and
transparent method of governing, that the least they can do is make sure that
the only member on the board of directors, Mr. Bill Kelly from Labrador, the
only member from Labrador on the board, is also present at these meetings -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: - is also present at these meetings so he can tell the
people in Labrador exactly the rationale behind his voting against this deal
when it came to their board meeting. I think it is very important to all of us
from Labrador that we hear Mr. Kelly's response.
As for the issues that will be raised, Mr. Speaker, I have lived in Labrador
long enough to know and anticipate what many of those will be. As I said
earlier, I look forward to taking
part in these discussions.
Thank you.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions this afternoon are for the Premier. We have an ever increasing
list of people who oppose this deal on the Lower Churchill. Two former premiers,
Tom Rideout and Brian Peckford -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. WILLIAMS: The least you could do is show some respect for two former
premiers of this Province.
Two Members of Parliament, John Efford and Lawrence O'Brien; two former
Chairpersons of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Vic Young and Dean MacDonald;
two Directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Mark Dobbin and Bill Kelly;
former Minister of Mines and Energy, Chuck Furey; myself, as Leader of the
Opposition, and my fellow caucus members. As of last Thursday - not as of today,
because it is an increasing number - 67 per cent of the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, last week I raised a number of issues concerning the terms of
the pending deal for on the Lower Churchill. In light of more recent
developments, I would like to ask the Premier for clarification on some of these
issues. Will the Premier please confirm that the financing arrangements for this
project will saddle our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with 100 per cent
of the cost overruns?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do recognize that some of the people mentioned by the Leader of the
Opposition have expressed some concerns, and rightfully so, because if what is
described by the Leader of the Opposition as being the arrangement, we would be
concerned too. That is the whole point, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is,
they are responding to a version of an arrangement described only by the Leader
of the Opposition. If that was the arrangement, I can tell you, there would not
be anybody here supporting it. Not a soul on this side would be supporting what
he has described.
Just to use the one example about the financing arrangement. When we are -
because there was a phrase used, I think, by the former Chair as well, about
lopsided financing arrangements. The language strikingly similar to that of the
Leader of the Opposition; I just say that in passing comment. We have financial
experts who will say to the people of the Province, if we are fortunate enough
to have a deal to talk about - because we are trying to do it, not trying to
find ways not to do it. We are trying to find something to develop Newfoundland
and Labrador, not to live another thirty years of sad days doing nothing. These
financial experts have advised this caucus and have advised the board of Hydro -
which is why, I guess, seven of them had very few, if any, reservations in terms
of supporting the arrangement. They would say that the financing they have been
privy to - because it was confidential to the Chair of the board, to all the
board, it has been confidential to this caucus - that the financing arrangements
- and we will gladly make it public to the people of the Province - will be the
exact opposite of what has been described. As a matter of fact, it is described
by financial experts who have advised this government for over thirty years,
people from institutions like Merrill Lynch, to be the best financing
arrangements available in the marketplace today. The absolute best arrangements
available today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It appears that three directors on the Board of Newfoundland and Labrador
Hydro agree with some of the issues that have been raised here today, including
the nominee from Labrador, Mr. Bill Kelly. It is obvious that the Premier
disagrees with Mr. Kelly's position.
Mr. Speaker, there are now other opinions from the Board of Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro that there is a relatively high probability that because of
overruns on cost we could lose the entire project to Quebec, or our return on
the project could be minimal, or, in fact, nothing. Mr. Speaker, would the
Premier confirm that there are provisions in the deal whereby we could lose the
project to Quebec, or our profits could be little or nothing if there are
overruns?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The financial advisers that advise the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador - our negotiators who have been at this for parts of four years, but
certainly very intensely in the last year-and-a-half, and certainly in the last
several months. These are longstanding financial advisers to the Province and
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. These are the same financial advisers
with the same international reputations who advised Premier Moores, Premier
Peckford, he would have advised Premier Rideout had he asked for any and been
around long enough to get some - not said in an unkind fashion, just stating a
fact. They have advised all of the Premiers of the Province consistently with a
world and international reputation.
They have indicated the exact opposite and will provide full detail and full
written and public documentation that in their opinion, as advisers around the
world in looking at the arrangements here, that in fact there is an extremely
high probability that the revenues from this project will be extremely positive
and significant for the Province of Newfoundland.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: The exact opposite of what has been said now by the
Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition used the exact words that
were on a transcript from the now retired Chair of the board from the media
yesterday and last night.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier stoops to
the lowest of levels in answering my questions in this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Director of the Board of
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro voted against this deal, and there is opinion
from that board that we are now giving up on Labrador in terms of their
abilities to foster industrial development and have power available to them for
their domestic use. In fact, the hon. the Premier last week in this House said,
with reference to the recall power: There is no demand, there is no use for it
in Labrador. Those are the Premier's exact words. He has quit on Labrador and
he has quit on the use of power in Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary now; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier confirm, for the people of
Labrador, that the recall notice -
MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for Torngat should listen to this because
this is very important to the people of Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question quickly.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier confirm, for the people of
Labrador, that the recall notice will be short enough and there will be
sufficient guarantees of power available immediately to satisfy the demands of
leaders like Lawrence O'Brien and the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to a couple of the
preambles, to correct the statement so it is
the statement that I did make about the recall, we were talking about the fact
that since 1972 there have been 300 megawatts of the cheapest electricity in the
world from Upper Churchill available for use in Labrador. What we were talking
about - my own words, and if you had finished the sentence you would read it for
the record to be correct - we said there are 170 of it currently being used in
Labrador. It powers the industrial development in Labrador West, and every other
use that is on the grid, and there is 130 that has been sitting there for thirty
years for which there has been no use and is no use today. It has been shopped
around to potential silicate smelters - the Member for Labrador West knows what
I am talking about - to other industrial users in Labrador, and there has been
no use for it in thirty years in Labrador, and it is much, much cheaper
electricity than what is going to be generated from Gull Island when it comes on
stream.
Mr. Speaker, that is the context, and with respect to recall, we have always
said from the beginning in the principles that we have talked about and the
issues that we will talk about tomorrow, that there will be recall provisions in
any arrangement that we sign, as well. Whether or not they are big enough or
timely enough, people will debate when, if we are ever in a position to actually
do a deal and move forward and have some energy to talk about recalling, because
the course that the Opposition is on, you will not be talking about recalling
anything because there will be no energy produced to even talk about. That is
their position: Don't do the development. That was their position on Voisey's
Bay -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - that is their position with Gull Island: Don't do the
development.
So, talking about recall is not much of an issue if there is nothing even
built to generate the electricity in the first place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker. Our position is not to do development, it
is not to do this development on the Lower Churchill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier confirm that his financial
experts, the people who advise him, would he confirm that these financial
arrangements that he is prepared to enter into on behalf of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, could leave our Province, Newfoundland and Labrador,
with the entire project development bill, yet place Hydro-Quebec in control of
the project development itself?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, with respect to the
preamble, the language is strikingly similar to
the Voisey's Bay debate because the Leader of the Opposition then said, we are
not against developing Voisey's Bay, we are against this deal. Now he is
saying, we are not against developing Gull Island but we are against this deal.
Mr. Speaker, maybe the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting to the people
of the Province that there is some alternate deal or other deal that is
available to be had that he can describe to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The choices, as we see it, are these: You find a way to move forward and do
something on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that is in our
collective best interest or you do not do it.
The choices that are presented by the Leader of the Opposition are ones that
lead to not another development that might be as good as or better than this,
but no development. That is the whole point, Mr. Speaker. They are talking about
no development, no energy, no prospects for Labrador, the Island or any place
else. That is the whole mantra that they talk about.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, fundamentally, what we have is this: We have
a circumstance where the best financing arrangements available on the planet
from financial experts are being made available to Newfoundland and Labrador
now, and that will be verified when we talk about it publicly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, can the Premier confirm now that, as a result of the rate that
will be charged to Quebec for our hydroelectricity, Quebec will, in fact,
receive more windfall profits from the Lower Churchill project while
Newfoundland and Labrador profits are at risk in that they are dependent on
budget and
schedule performance on the project?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad that he has probably had an opportunity now to have a fuller
briefing with the former Chair of the Hydro board, whom I have great respect
for, Mr. Speaker.
In fact, I guess the Leader of the Opposition is showing quite clearly that
his principles, his morals, are such that it does not really matter what
questions you ask, where you get the information base, or what you do, as long
as it furthers his political agenda.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, I think it has been acknowledged in
the media today, that the Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged publicly
that he has compromised -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to quickly conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged, I think, publicly in the
Province, that he has compromised the former Chair of the board of Hydro by
speaking to him through all of last week, while he was still Chair of the board,
and, in fact, that is okay according to the Leader of the Opposition because -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to take his seat.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is very rare; I have never raised a point
of order during Question Period but I am going to now because the slanderous
attack by the Premier, in view of your ruling yesterday, putting into question
the morals, the integrity, of the Leader of the Opposition, is contemptuous,
Premier! Do the right thing, stand up and apologize, because that behaviour does
not belong in this Legislature!.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, this is the hon. gentleman who does not waste the
time of Question Period. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have ever risen in
Question Period with a point of order, and maybe the other day waited a little
too long in terms of not delaying the House.
Mr. Speaker, I heard nothing from the Premier questioning the honesty or the
integrity of the Leader of the Opposition. It is just another case of the hon.
Opposition House Leader trying to take this place on his back, trying to control
the place -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: - standing up, Mr. Speaker, and wasting the time of the House.
Let it be known that nobody on this side of the House wants to waste the time
of the House. They want the business to proceed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has already heard the point of order.
As the hon. member -
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To the point of order, the Chair will certainly review Hansard to see what
the hon. Premier actually did say, and the context in which it was said, and
will review it and report back to the House.
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I just want to remind hon. members that it is most unusual for us to have
points of order during Question Period. It is usually reserved until the end of
the Question Period, but if hon. members insist on points of order, then that is
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the Government House Leader is of the view that members on this side are
going to stand and let those scurrilous accusations imputing the member,
imputing the motives of the Leader of the Opposition, think again; because when
they are made we are going to take them on (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we are here as an Opposition to present the very serious and the
very legitimate concerns of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, as
reflected in the poll that we did last week.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, hon. members may laugh but I consider this
very serious to all of us here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.
Premier, let me say this: If you will not kill this deal, and if you will
only disclose this deal to selected members of your caucus and your Cabinet and
to the Board of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I ask you, I challenge you
today, to present this deal and all the detail before this House, to this House,
to the people in this House of Assembly, before a deal is signed, so that
myself, you and the Leader of the New Democratic Party can have a full and open
televised debate on all the issues, clause by clause,
section by section, and
let's see if you really have the answers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, we are striking a bit of a nerve across the way today, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have already indicated that the full details of any deal that
we can do will be brought to everybody in the Province and to this Legislature,
to the people of the Province and this Legislature, for full, informed debate.
That is the difference, Mr. Speaker. That is the standard that we use, and I
use, versus the standard that the Leader of the Opposition uses.
Let me finish the point from before, Mr. Speaker. The standard that the
Leader of the Opposition uses is that he sees nothing wrong with putting the
Chair of a Crown corporation, a major business, in jeopardy and in possible
breach of trust, by conferring with him and talking with him. In fact, Mr.
Speaker, the public record says - and the Leader of the Opposition bragged about
it - that he spoke with the Chair of the board throughout last week.
MR. WILLIAMS: That is not true. That is not true.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: It is verbatim, Mr. Speaker, it is a quote.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
It is absolutely (inaudible) withdraw it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
I would ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: I would gladly withdraw if these words from the media,
attributed to Mr. Williams, are false. Mr. MacDonald indicated to me, I guess,
well over a week ago - and this was yesterday - well over a week ago -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition acknowledged that publicly, now tries to deny it
in the House of Assembly, and has been conferring with the Chair for over a
week, Mr. Speaker, and he sees nothing wrong with it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: The hon. the Premier - and the record of Hansard will tell
the truth - said that I spoke to Mr. MacDonald all through last week about this
matter, and he used other terms which I didn't hear, but we will check the
record. This is improper, you are misleading the House, and you are lying to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that remark.
MR. WILLIAMS: I withdraw the remarks with respect to lying, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Finance.
The actual deficit for the fiscal year 2001-2002, as reported in the
Consolidated
Summary Financial Statements and tabled in this House yesterday,
was $473 million.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will she tell this House why she is trying
to hide the size of the Province's real deficit?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker
Mr. Speaker, I will say to the hon. Member for Ferryland, these were our
reports that we tabled, government's reports, the public accounts that states
the deficit by the accrual method is $473 million. There was never any intent to
do otherwise. These are our reports. These are not the Auditor General's
reports. These are our financial statements for the whole Province for this year
past.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That is exactly the point I am trying to make. She talks about a cash basis
all the time and it is only once a year when they have to tell the real deficit
by their own comptroller general and confirmed, I might add, by the Auditor
General, and she tries to hide it for the other eleven months and twenty-nine
days.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, this government says that great things are
happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are leading the country in
economic growth for the last several years. In the last three years this
government has added $1 billion to the net debt of our Province. It took fifty
years to accumulate a debt of $7.9 million.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister, in just three years you have added $1
billion to the debt of this Province. If things are going so great, Minister,
can you tell us how we are going into debt at an unprecedented pace?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First I would like an opportunity to respond to the fairly lengthy
preamble
the member raised with respect to the Public Accounts Committee.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to get to her answer.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I would say to the member opposite, there is nothing hidden. These are public
documents that government reported and have tabled in this House of Assembly;
the same as we did last year and the year before.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question, I would say that this government,
these members on this side of the House, have decided very clearly that we are
not interested in the numbers specifically and only, but we are interested in
the balance, and that means people. It means striking the balance between the
economic and social needs of this Province. I can account for the money, the
people here can account for the money, in our health programs and in funding our
unfunded pension plans. That has been our priorities, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier. In light of the comments of the Chairman of
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Dean MacDonald, about the lopsided financing
arrangements. I am quoting here: With a reasonable chance that for the life of
the project we could receive nothing, that Hydro Quebec will get a
disproportionate share of the profits of the Gull Island deal, that Labrador
will be marginalized for future economic development. In light of these comments
by the Chairman of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, will the Premier not
acknowledge that this deal, based on these comments, should not be proceeded
with? How can the people of this Province have any confidence in a deal of this
nature when Dean MacDonald, the Chairman of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, has
these comments about it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure that the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi,
does not mean to degrade or diminish the intelligence and capability of the
other members of the board either because these are all qualified, educated,
committed and dedicated Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are there to serve
the Province and to serve Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
The point is this: one person has said that that is his view. The financial
advisers that advise the government and the board disagree totally and
completely with that one person. That will become obvious and evident as we
disclose the information if we arrange to have a deal. The fact of the matter
is, that we will see - because everybody will make their own judgement. Mr.
MacDonald, the former chair, and a person that I know personally and respect, is
not the only person who has an opinion about this. The other opinions are
contrary to his.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: As a matter of fact, what is interesting is that ten
people received the information and seven of them obviously disagree with Mr.
MacDonald and voted to proceed because they thought Newfoundland and Labrador's
interests were protected in this arrangement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier had enough confidence in Mr. MacDonald to have him on the board
for six years and to name him Chairman of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. When
three of the members of this board - who have had the most opportunity to look
at it in detail and with some objectivity - have seen that they must not support
this deal, how can the public have confidence in this deal? Why does the Premier
not admit that this deal will not fly with the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I guess the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi practices a strange view
of democracy and majority and expression of support. The fact of it is this -
not to be lost - seven people, that I respect their views and opinions every bit
as much as the former Chair, seven of these people have looked at it and have
not registered those kinds of complaints. One person has.
When the Leader of the Opposition was speaking earlier about a poll that he
had conducted -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - he was bragging about the fact that 64 per cent of the
people viewed it a certain way and therefore I should do something. Well, 70 per
cent of the people viewed it in detail and said it is something we should
proceed with and vote it to go ahead.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask
leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Forestry
Act." (Bill 27)
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Bide Arm and
the surrounding area. It is a petition dealing with an incinerator, a teepee
style incinerator that is in close proximity to the town. I will read the
petition:
To the hon. House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative
session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador;
WHEREAS the incinerator is located very close to the highway, making it an
eyesore to the area just before entering our community; and
WHEREAS since it is located in a valley, the same valley that our community
is located in, the prevailing winds cause smoke and fumes from the incinerator
to be funneled directly over our community. Furthermore, if there is no wind the
smoke just hangs in the air over the community; and
WHEREAS there is a little stream that flows by the base of the incinerator
and the dump site. This stream then continues to flow out the valley and into a
larger stream that flows into the harbour. The water should be tested in this
stream to see if there are contaminates present because our people catch and eat
fish from this water; and
WHEREAS we believe that all kinds of garbage is being burned at this site,
including materials that can contain toxic substances and harmful chemicals.
Fast growing cancers are reported to be caused by contaminates from these kinds
of waste products. In our community alone, within the time frame that the
incinerator has been in operation, there have been at least eight people die of
fast growing cancers;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to immediately remove the incinerator before more health and environmental
problems are realized, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the members opposite find so funny about the
petition that is being presented here today. There certainly seems to be a lot
of jesting and remarks coming from the other side. I can tell you, when I was
out to meet with the people of Bide Arm just about a month-and-a-half ago on
this issue, they found it to be no laughing matter. The people in this community
live within one kilometre of this incinerator. Three days out of five there is
smoke coming from that incinerator blowing right through the community when the
prevailing wind is blowing out from the north-northwest.
Mr. Speaker, these people have put up with this incinerator for quite a
number of years now. I think it was in 1991 that the incinerator was initially
put there. At that time, of course, incinerators were being constructed all
around this Province and not too many of us thought about the impact that this
might have on our environment, about the impact that this might have on our
people, but now we know the difference. Certainly, over the past year government
has brought forward plans for a new waste disposal strategy for the years to
come. Certainly, the people of this area, the people of Bide Arm in particular,
but also the people in Englee and the people in Roddickton who use this waste
disposal facility, also support the people of Bide Arm in their desire to see
this incinerator shut down.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly support the people of Bide Arm and the surrounding
area here. As I said when I started out, this incinerator is within one -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, just a few seconds to clue up.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said, the people of Bide Arm are within one kilometre of this
incinerator, and we all know what is burned in incinerators. There is
practically everything burned in incinerators. They do have very serious
concerns about the impact of this on their health. As they note in their
petition, there have been a number of people in this community who - in the view
of the community, an excessive number of people - have developed fast growing
cancers over the past number of years since this incinerator has been in place
here, and they are very concerned about it.
At the very least, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is incumbent on the
Department of Health and the Department of Environment to have a serious look at
this matter, to review the statistics when it comes to the health problems of
the people in this area; to look at what is being burned in the incinerator and,
Mr. Speaker, to expedite the move of shutting down teepee style incinerators
around this Province. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, to put the incinerator in the Bide
Arm area first and foremost on the list, because of its close proximity to the
people, as one of the sites to be closed down early.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition signed by approximately 2,600 people from
the communities of Churchill Falls, Wabush, and Labrador City. The petition
states:
WHEREAS the Trans-Labrador runs through 600 kilometres of wilderness and the
lack of any form of communication along the highway poses serious safety
concerns; and
WHEREAS this is an issue of public safety that government must address; and
WHEREAS this issue of public safety can be addressed by making reliable
cellphone coverage available along the Trans-Labrador Highway.
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government
to take immediate action to rectify this serious safety issue and have cellphone
service made available along the entire length of the Trans-Labrador Highway.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I raised this issue publicly, back in July. I
issued a press release, written letters to the ministers and asked that they
take action to initiate such a procedure that would allow people to have
communications along the Trans-Labrador Highway. Two weeks later the minister
responded publicly by making an announcement. He did not refer that I initiated
it but he did make an announcement after as if he did stating that he was going
to take some form of corrective action. To date, Mr. Speaker, we still have not
heard anything from that minister concerning providing communication
capabilities along that
section of highway.
Mr. Speaker, many people travelled that highway in recent years but there are
still times when you can be on that highway for long periods of time and not see
any traffic coming towards you at all. If anything should happen during that
period of time, if you go off the road. In the wintertime conditions are pretty
severe, temperatures are very, very cold, you could freeze to death in the
matter of minutes or hours if your car is not able to stay running. It is
important that people have a means of communication in order to call for
assistance.
Mr. Speaker, we have had many occasions, along this highway, where a
cellphone could have cut down response time by the RNC or by ambulances that
would have responded to people in a much more fashionable time period than what
is available at the moment. We have had people who spent many long hours on that
highway stranded, and it is not a great feeling to be stranded in the wilderness
of Labrador in the summer or winter.
I implore upon the minister to keep his commitment to the people of Labrador
and to provide the coverage that he promised back in July but has yet failed to
act on. This is a very important issue, Mr. Speaker. It is not that people want
to call ahead to tell someone to get a loaf of bread or they are going to be a
few minutes late, this is a matter of life and death for people who become
stranded on this highway.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue to people in
Labrador and the travelling public from other places who happen to use this
highway. The time has long gone, Mr. Speaker, when we can be without services
that people in most parts of this country take for granted. It is high time that
we have these services available to us so that when we need them we are able to
use them as well.
I implore upon the minister to take corrective action to do something about
this immediately; not wait for another couple of years and keep stalling and
making empty promises.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition here signed by in excess of 520 people. I will read the
prayer of the petition:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session
convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador;
WHEREAS the government has requested the Board of Regents to consider a name
change of our University; and
WHEREAS Memorial University of Newfoundland is excluded under the
Newfoundland and Labrador Act; and
WHEREAS publicly funded universities can be named for a region of a province;
and
WHEREAS when other political entities changed, the name of the university
within it did not; and
WHEREAS our educational mandate is not limited to this Province; and
WHEREAS the University is on the Island of Newfoundland; and
WHEREAS the first university in other provinces did not reflect the entire
name of the province; and
WHEREAS there will be enormous costs to undergo this name change; and
WHEREAS there are enormous disadvantages to not having a geographic identity
attached to the University; and
WHEREAS another proposed university in this Province is more suitable to have
Labrador added to its name;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to retain the current name, Memorial University of Newfoundland, as in duty
bound your petitioners will ever pray.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that this petition which is from alumni from all
over the world - actually from England, Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Ireland,
Switzerland, Vermont, The Netherlands, Labrador, Royal Canadian Legion in
Twillingate; some e-mails and signatures from the general public as well as the
support of some of our MPS. I understand that these numbers are among many of
thousands that have been presented to various Members of the House of Assembly
who will be, I am sure, presenting a petition in due course.
I would like to deal with a couple of the clauses in the petition, one of
them being the enormous costs that a name change would present. Prudent
management would suggest that a cost benefit analysis should be done for an
institution of this magnitude. This has not been done. It will be a cost that
this University cannot afford in these times of rising tuition and low
enrollment. I guess what the people who have signed the petition are saying is
that there are many more priorities that they can do. For instance, having the
cost of tuition lowered and the other numerous costs associated with that, that
there are many more important things that the money can be spent on.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS S. OSBORNE: A few minutes to clue up, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.
I present this petition on behalf of the many people who have sent e-mails
from abroad and hope that this House will listen to their petition.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition as well. The petition reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative
session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador;
WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since
it was paved approximately twenty-six year ago; and
WHEREAS this
section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that school
children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to upgrade and pave the approximately three kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy
Cove to Bonavista.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of a number of petitions that I continually receive
from people living in not only Birchy Cove and Bonavista, but in all the
communities leading from Bonavista all the way up Route 235. This is the main
road leading to the Town of Bonavista on that particular route. It is the only
way that people from King's Cove going south to Bonavista have access to the
Town of Bonavista. It is the only road that they have access to the hospital, to
the schools there, and to other government services that is operated in the
larger town, which is Bonavista.
Government, in its wisdom, has made approximately four attempts to upgrade
and pave the five kilometres of road that I have been talking about for the past
four years. This past year they made a commitment to go there and complete two
kilometres - not a big project, but it was acceptable. The people said: Well, at
last we are going to get some meaningful work done. In their wisdom, they
decided to cut back on the amount of pavement and upgrading that they were going
to do and ended up doing 700 metres of road there.
Mr. Speaker, when you drive down this
section of road now you do not know if
you are on the shoulder of the road or if you are in the middle of the road
because the shoulders of the road and the pavement have deteriorated so much
that you have gravel leading all the way out to the center of the road.
We heard the Minister of Tourism stand here a couple of days ago and read
about how well the tourism industry is doing here in Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker,
tourism is a big drawer in the District of Bonavista South. In fact, the Town of
Bonavista, King's Cove and that particular area, is probably one of the focal
points of tourism here in the Province. People would like to go down Route 230
and then make the detour and do the complete loop up Route 235. We call it the
scenic route.
Every time you talk to people who are going down there with their motor homes
and people travelling there by private vehicle as well, the first thing they
talk about is the condition of the road. They enjoy the sites. They enjoy the
hospitality of the people, but the one thing they do not enjoy is the road that
they have to travel over in order to get to Bonavista and in order to come up
and connect with Route 230 again, to connect with the main highway leading to
the Trans-Canada Highway. A few years ago, the people in the area decided that
they themselves had to do something with this road. They decided they were going
to protest.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, they did not want to close off the road.
They said: We are going to be responsible. What we will do is we will go and
hold an information session on the side of the road. They handed out pamphlets
and asked for support in order that they might get this road completely upgraded
and completed. The road still needs to be completed. There is still three
kilometres of very bad road there. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this member
will stand and present whatever petitions come until this
section of roadway is
completely upgraded and repaved.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition pertaining to a name change of Memorial
University. I just want to reference here the prayer of the petition. It reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session
convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador
MS KELLY: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary
Education, I am reading the petition as it was presented to me, and she is
interjecting and saying that it is not correct.
The petition was presented by people to me and I am going to read it as it
was presented. If that is not in keeping here, the minister has a right to rise
on a point of order to that effect.
The petition says:
WHEREAS the government has requested the Board of Regents to consider a name
change of our University; and
WHEREAS Memorial University of Newfoundland is excluded under the
Newfoundland and Labrador Act; and
WHEREAS publicly funded universities can be named for a region of a province;
and
WHEREAS when other political entities changed, the name of the university
within it did not; and
WHEREAS our educational mandate is not limited to this Province; and
WHEREAS the University is on the Island of Newfoundland; and
WHEREAS the first university in other provinces did not reflect the entire
name of the Province; and
WHEREAS there will be enormous costs to undergo this name change; and
WHEREAS there are enormous disadvantages to not having a geographic identity
attached to the University; and
WHEREAS another proposed university in this Province is more suitable to have
Labrador added to its name;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to retain the current name - Memorial University of Newfoundland, as in duty
bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this petition was signed by 610 people in this Province; 303
people from Memorial University of Newfoundland have signed it at the St. John's
and the Sir Wilfred Grenfell College. It has been signed by 163 people through
the Legion clubs in Ferryland, Catalina, Blaketown and St. Alban's, and by 144
members of the general public outside the circulation area of these particular
petitions. These people want an opportunity for their voice to be heard. Over
the past little while, since the House opened here, I know there have been
several thousands of people have put forth their name on a petition asking that
this be considered. I put forward this petition on behalf of these residents
here and ask government to seriously consider the input of people in this
Province with respect to this very important issue.
Thank you
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 11, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's
(Loan) Act, 1978. Bill 19.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 19 entitled,
An Act To
Amend The City Of St. John's (Loan) Act, 1978 -
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Sorry, we will change that.
Order 13, Bill 17.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner
Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The
Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000." (Bill
17)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of the Municipal and Provincial
Affairs.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation was brought to the House in
the spring session but did not get through second reading at that particular
time. This piece of legislation, by the way, has been requested by the
Federation of Municipalities over a number of years, and also requested by the
City of St. John's, the City of Corner Brook and the City of Mt. Pearl, along
with some of the larger towns.
Currently, where municipal bylaws and regulations are not obeyed, the
municipalities may take remedial action by recovering the costs through the
courts. That is very, very cumbersome for them and in many instances they do not
arrive at the benefits that they should have gotten from it. When this is not a
viable option for those nuisance issues, that is when the federation and the
city approached us to see if we would bring in the legislation to correct it.
That is what we have done, Mr. Speaker.
There is no extra revenue to the Province from this. The revenue goes to the
municipalities, and where there are outstanding tickets issued to a property
owner, it will be treated as a lien against the property and the municipality
will be able to collect on that.
As I said, neither does it give additional authority to the municipalities
either, but merely simplifies and streamlines the current municipal enforcement
process. Tickets here would be issued for offences rather than going through the
court process, as I suggested earlier. It is more effective in ensuring
compliance with municipal bylaws and less costly than pursuing the matters
through the courts.
I will give you some of the ideas of what we are talking about here:
violation of noise bylaws, for example. I can give example number one, where
late night parties are disturbing neighbours. Up to this particular time, if
there was ticket issued it would have to go through the court system and
probably never be able to recover.
Another example is where a car wreck or unsightly vehicle is left outside for
a period of time and becomes an aesthetic nuisance; an unsightly building that
requires painting; a fence left in a state of disrepair; litter and waste left
on a property; unsecured material left dangling from a roof - like a ladder for
example; walkways to a house in a state of disrepair.
There is another one that the municipalities have some trouble with, and that
is commercial waste. For example, when you have those big trucks coming into the
neighbourhood at, say, 5:00 a.m. to collect from the large disposable
containers. The municipalities would like to be able to change some of these
things in relation to the noise bylaws. The other example we have, of course, is
the improper disposal of waste.
These have been thought about. We have worked with the federation for a long,
long time. The city has been involved, all of the stakeholders, they have asked
for it. I have talked to my colleagues across the way and they do not seem to
have a lot of problem with this piece of legislation. I look forward to its
speedy passage in this House, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, as the minister said, we have had some discussions on this
particular bill, Bill 17. It basically allows the cities and towns in the
Province to issue tickets for certain offences. Of course, unpaid tickets could
be assessed against property taxes and assessments for property related ticket
offences.
Mr. Speaker, as the minister said, we have had discussions - and our
colleagues - on this particular piece of legislation and we are certainly not
going to hold it up in any way, but we do have a few comments to make on it.
Of course, he has also stated that the Federation of Municipalities have
asked for this for quite some time, as a matter of fact, and it was in the
Legislature in the spring but we did not get to that particular piece of
legislation.
In keeping with that, we will certainly co-operate, as we do, Mr. Speaker, on
many occasions in this House when legislation is brought forward, especially by
groups such as the Federation of Municipalities, and towns and cities throughout
the Province where we can help, in some way, clear up, make it less cumbersome,
as the minister has said, so that the councils throughout this Province can
indeed, in a less cumbersome way, collect these fees the same as they do with
taxes and so on.
When you deal with the piece of legislation which concerns municipalities
throughout this Province and you see another way of - I guess, again, it is a
money-related bill in the way that towns can collect on these tickets; but when
you think about that, you also cannot help but think of how towns and cities
throughout this Province have such a hard time in getting funding to do the
things they need to do in their communities. Although this bill in particular
deals with the tickets and being able to collect on these, some of the examples
that the minister has given - for example, noise levels throughout the
community, car wrecks, unsightly buildings, and so on - it allows those
communities to be able to act on those things that they see happening throughout
their community.
Mr. Speaker, we do not have a problem with any of those, but you are still
reminded, any time you hear of a town trying to collect money, be it through
tickets, through taxes, fees and so on, you cannot help but be reminded of the
problems that the municipalities around this Province face today. For example,
when we talk about the councils being able to collect money, I cannot help but
think about the Municipal Operating Grants throughout this Province that have
been slashed by some 50 per cent since 1995-1996, and councils and towns
throughout this Province are struggling as they lose people through
out-migration, and the numbers speak for themselves. The statistics change, the
numbers change. I have heard different numbers spoken of in this Chamber but
somewhere in the area of 60,000 people have left the Province since 1992, and,
Mr. Speaker, most of those come from rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador.
As a matter of fact, when people talk about out-migration and the effect on
rural Newfoundland and Labrador, rural parts of the Province have been hit twice
because really they have seen people leave their communities to go to the
mainland, which we have seen throughout the Province, especially to Alberta,
British Columbia and Ontario, but the rural towns in this Province have also
seen people leave the smaller towns in Newfoundland and Labrador to go to St.
John's, Corner Brook, Grand Falls, Gander, the bigger centres in the Province
where they hope they will find jobs.
At the same time when you look at the statistics of the 60,000 people who
left the Province, really it does not take into account the people who left
rural Newfoundland and Labrador and went to the bigger centres to find help.
That is the way it is, especially in these days when you see, of course, even
the cod closure we talked about just a few days ago; what kind of an impact that
will have on the smaller communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and
their ability to collect taxes and fees and so on, and the struggle that they
have, and then to talk to the councillors who are on the front lines.
The councils in this Province are volunteer councils. Especially in this day
and age, Mr. Speaker, when you can get young people adding onto the councils to
get some new blood infusion into the councils around this Province, they see the
struggle right away of people and how they, as a council, can collect on fees
and taxes and so on, so that they can still offer the same services in these
small communities. Because, simply put, although the tax base has shrunk and
people have left, the councils are still left with the burden of still providing
those services. That has not stopped. So, when the minister talks about anything
to do with councils and fees and collecting of taxes and so on, something they
should be reminded of are the MOGs, the Municipal Operating Grants, the little
bit of money that means a lot to small communities. The Municipal Operating
Grants have, since 1995-1996, been slashed by sometimes in the range of 50 per
cent. So, although a small community like Fleur de Lys, in my district, may have
collected $40,000 to $50,000, for example - I do not have the exact numbers but
we discussed it a little while ago with the council - let's say $50,000 a year
in Municipal Operating Grants, it might not sound like a lot to the bigger
communities in the Province but to a small community it means a lot. That
particular community is now probably somewhere in the range of $20,000 to
$25,000 a year, so they have lost $25,000. Now, what does that mean to a small
community in rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Mr. Speaker, when you want to get
right down to it, that is a council that has to go around its community and
decide what street lights they are turning off next. Mr. Speaker, that is the
way it is. That is simply what it comes down to in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador when you talk about collecting fees and taxes and trying to help a
council who are still there with a shrinking tax base but still have to provide
the services that people have come to expect.
What do they expect in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker? The
simple things like decent drinking water, a decent road to travel over, and
every single time I talk to a council - and I know I have spoken to my
colleagues in rural parts of this Province who say the same thing over and over
- they are not asking for a lot. They are asking for the simple things: knowing
that when their children drink a glass of water from the tap, it is decent water
and it is healthy.
Mr Speaker, many, many communities throughout this Province face that
challenge every single day. We, as provincial members - but imagine the people
on the front lines, councillors in the small communities in our Province, who
have that to worry about day in and day out. The fact is, the number of
communities in this Province to date - maybe the minister can even talk about it
when he gets up - it is well over 200 communities in this Province today. I
think there are 236 or 246 that still have boil orders on. There are some
communities that have had it on for a year to a year-and-a-half and there are
some communities, Mr. Speaker, in this Province - and we should all be ashamed
to say it or to acknowledge it - that there are communities that have ten years,
fifteen years of boil orders in their communities and have struggled and
struggled to try to improve water systems in their communities, and I speak to
them on a daily basis. I have thirty-three communities in the Baie Verte
District. The Member for Bonavista South - forty-four rural communities spread
throughout his district. He will tell you how many communities in his district.
Or on the Northern Peninsula, in The Straits, White Bay North, St. Barbe - they
will tell you how many community councillors they talk to on a daily basis and
one of their biggest fears is the health and safety of the people in their
communities, and the fact that boil orders continuously pop up.
Since the situation in Ontario some years ago, Walkerton has put certainly a
scare into everybody, and so it should because it is our families, it is our
children. Imagine the simple necessity - not a luxury, the simple necessity - of
good drinking water, to have a clear conscience, to feel safe to tell your
residents, if you are a councillor in those small communities, that yes, it is
safe to drink the water. Or, if it is not actually safe to drink, is it safe to
use at any cost?
Those are the things that communities around this Province challenge this
government to make sure that when they are talking about Municipal Operating
Grants, which may sound like a small amount of money to some people in this
Province, to a lot of people and a lot of communities, and a lot of small
councils in a lot of small communities, it means a lot. It means the difference
between them being able to tell them they have decent drinking water.
Then, when you look around the roads - and we could go on for days and days
talking about the road situation in this Province. It all comes together under
the same umbrella, Madam Speaker. The fact is that communities throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador are struggling, day in, day out, for the basic
necessities of decent drinking water and a decent road to travel over.
Then, of course, we could go on into other things like the state of the
school system and what that means to rural Newfoundland and Labrador; health
care - we have talked about that over and over - but when I look at this piece
of legislation and just connect it to it, because it is all connected any time
you talk about municipalities throughout this Province. The convention that the
Federation of Municipalities held in Corner Brook just a short time ago, if you
walk around that convention and talk to councillors and mayors and town clerks
who, on a daily basis, face those types of questions, you really truly
understand, Madam Speaker, why municipalities in this Province continually talk
to the government on correcting things such as the Municipal Operating Grants.
I understand, Madam Speaker, and I hope, and I have heard it many times as I
talked to the Federation of Municipalities lately, that there is something
coming very soon. It is long overdue, it is definitely long overdue, that there
is some kind of redress to be done with the Municipal Operating Grants in this
Province, to give the small communities in Newfoundland and Labrador a chance
for a bit of common decency, when you talk about our road system and you talk
about safe drinking water throughout our towns.
Madam Speaker, there is not a lot I want to say on this particular bill
today. It is certainly something that the Federation of Municipalities and the
councils throughout this Province have been suggesting for quite some time. As a
matter of fact, it is overdue, this piece of legislation that is here today. We
should have had it done this spring. It could have been enacted by now, so that
anything that we can do as a Legislature to help municipalities throughout this
Province, and the bigger towns, to make it less cumbersome so that they can act
on things they need to do in their own communities, well, Madam Speaker, we are
all for it.
Many times you hear of legislation throughout this House when we don't
co-operate. Well, that is not true, Madam Speaker. As a matter of fact, we
support this piece of legislation. We are glad it is here, it should have been
here earlier, but anything that we can do to help municipalities throughout this
Province do their job better, because they are the ones on the front line, then
we fully support, and we fully support this bill.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Hodder): The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I am very pleased today to rise in debate on Bill 17. I was just sharing with
one of my colleagues, that in the ten years of being in this Legislature, I
think this is the only bill that is specific to my district in a significant
way, that I have asked and pushed for in terms of its introduction.
AN HON. MEMBER: Nine-and-a-half.
MR. MATTHEWS: Nine-and-a-half. Then, nine-and-a-half plus one day is
effectively ten years, as the hon. member would know.
This bill, Madam Speaker, is a bill that has importance for the constituents
that I represent in St. John's North because of the extra ability it will give
the City of St. John's to deal with some very serious, some very specific,
issues that occur and have been occurring in the district that I represent for
the past number of years.
Let me describe it briefly without taking too much time. The district that I
represent, of course, largely involves the area around the Memorial University
of Newfoundland. It takes in the area of the Baird Subdivision. It takes in the
area of New Town Road, Empire Avenue West and beyond that.
What we have seen happen in that area over the last number of years is: in
significant numbers, the properties have been purchased by people who do not
always live in the houses that they own. There has been a very high rate of
rentals occurring in that area. In the case of rentals, of course, what you have
is a circumstance where you have landlords who own properties, properties are
rented out sometimes to working people, sometimes to students. In that area of
the city there is a high preponderance of students who do rent those properties.
It has been well highlighted in the media many times that in that particular
area, unfortunately, there are higher than usual - particularly on weekends -
incidents of noise, rowdiness, partying, and that sort of thing, that disturb
many of the residents who live there in their own homes and who have lived there
for many years. Many of the seniors in that area have asked me if there is some
way we could deal with this issue.
This particular bill actually was initiated by myself, as minister, when I
was in the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Following that, my
successor, the current Minister of Finance, and then beyond that the current
minister, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, moved this forward
in consultation with the Department of Justice.
What we have culminating in those requests and those activities, is a bill
here today that will give greater ability to the City of St. John's to be able
to issue tickets to landlords whose properties are being occupied by renters and
who are less than respectful, I regretfully say, of the citizens who live in
that area traditionally, their neighbours, people who live across the street,
many of whom, I would point out, are seniors, people who have moved in that area
thirty or forty years ago and still live in the residence that they bought.
As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, I bought my first house in Baird
Subdivision thirty-seven years ago myself. At that time, I moved in there as a
very young parent. People of my ilk who bought property in that area
thirty-seven, forty years ago, and who decided to stay there, are now getting up
in years where their family has been raised and they are now enjoying, as I am,
grandchildren in their lives. This particular bill will serve to recognize and
serve to give ability to city council; to make ticketable' and to provide
the issuance of tickets for people who occupy properties and who violate certain
statutes of municipalities.
I would just point out for the record, Madam Speaker, the type of offences
that can be covered by this ticketing system and by this authority that has been
given to the City of St. John's and to other municipalities named in this
particular bill. Once this legislation passes, properties will be able to be
ticketed. The owners of properties will be able to be ticketed for such things
as unsightly building repairs and painting; fence left in a state of disrepair;
landlord or resident fails to provide working smoke detectors; litter and waste
left on the property; unsecured material left dangling from a roof, and that
sort of thing.
It will also provide authority to the city to be able to ticket for those who
are disrespectful of noise curfews and who are in the process, or in the habit,
of engaging in partying activities that are most disturbing to people as
residents of the area.
This year I recall seeing on two occasions, Madam Speaker, on the evening
news, incidents where residents have had to call police in, to provide
protection and to enforce law to ensure that rowdiness and things that were
happening in the area where brought under control. There was actually one, I
remember a couple of months ago, an evening news piece showing police actually
in the area of the Baird Subdivision making arrests of unfortunately some young
people who had gotten a little bit out of hand.
I have had a lot of requests from citizens, from residents in the area, to
give the city greater ability to deal with these issues by way of being able to
ticket them, and if they do not pay their tickets lien the property so that it
makes them more responsible and pay more attention to what is going on in their
rented properties. This year, I have had numerous requests and I have had
petitions from people in a whole different area of the Baird Subdivision that
before did not seem to be as affected as some other areas with this type of
thing going on.
I am commending of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs for
finally being able to move this piece of legislation to the Legislature, so that
we can put this additional authority in place for municipalities, in this case
the City of St. John's, to deal with some of these issues.
This, in and of itself, obviously, Madam Speaker, will not cause to see all
of the problems disappear. We will still have those types of issues to deal
with. There is still the level of authority and responsibility that the police
will continue to have, to deal with these people.
This particular bill is a significant step forward in that it allows the City
of St. John's to issue tickets which, if they go unpaid, will form a lien on
the property owners, which in that event makes it more of a conscious issue for
the landlords to ensure that their properties are being properly occupied, that
the residents are being properly respectful of the property and respectful of
the rights of citizens of long standing in the area.
I am happy, Madam Speaker, to see this bill come forward. As I said before,
it is an issue that has caused me a lot of discussion and dialogue with my
constituents. I only wish that we could have moved it forward a year or two ago.
It would have relieved some of things that have happened in the interim. The
fact of the matter is, as I have explained to my constituents, it does take some
time to move these bills to the Legislature. Consultations have to be held with
municipalities that are being given this authority, to ensure that it is going
to work for them. Consultations have to be held with other departments, such as
Justice, to ensure that the ticketing process is going to be effective and will
deliver, in some measure at least, the desired results. I am very pleased today
that we have arrived at this point.
I say to constituents who may be listening today, that while this will not
solve all of the issues of rowdiness, untidiness, partying and untoward
behaviour by some of the people who rent some of these properties, it will go a
long way to help.
I would also point out, Madam Speaker, that while this may seem to be a big,
big issue in the district, it is, but in terms of the magnitude of it, the
number of people who cause these problems in any neighbourhood or in any area
are grossly and singularly in the minority. This bill does not reflect a
circumstance where we have bedlam or where we have things happening on a scale
that would almost suggest we are New York or something like that. That is not
the case. But where we have even one incident on one Friday night where there is
one party going on and where one group of individuals are out of order and out
of line and causing disturbances by acting inside the property and outside the
property to the detriment of neighbours, where we have one circumstance of that
happening, it is one too many and this bill will have, I hope, in some way been
the result of providing a remedy to cause these things to be less prevalent and,
hopefully, cause these things to disappear altogether.
So, to put it into perspective, Madam Speaker, before I sit down, I do want
to recognize that this is not something that is a big, big occurrence everyday
of the week but there are areas of the city, there are areas of the Province,
there are areas within specific municipalities, where by virtue of a
preponderance of a particular type of clientele in rental properties is more
serious than in other areas. If I can prevent grief, if I can, in some way,
cause to have less problems, less disturbances, less discomfiture, less nights
awake for seniors, in particular, in my district where these things have been an
issue, and for anybody in the district, young families in the district where
these things have been disturbing and if it prevents even one incident in the
future, it, in and of itself will have been worth bringing to the Legislature
and getting this legislation passed.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for your time, and thanks again to the
sponsoring ministers who have made this bill possible for the purposes that I
have outlined.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I am very pleased to rise today and to support this particular bill which is,
of course, an amendment to The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl
Act, The City Of St. John's, Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 and The Urban
And Rural Planning Act, 2000.
Madam Speaker, I come to this position in this House after having served
twenty-two-and-a-half years in municipal government; sixteen of them as the
Mayor of Mount Pearl and the balance either as a deputy mayor or as a
councillor. I can say to all hon. members, it gets very frustrating when you are
trying to make sure that things in your municipality are going along in
acceptable manners when you have some people who choose not to obey the rules as
laid down to take pride in your community.
Certainly, when I look at the list here of offences that the minister may
establish by regulation as being offences onto this particular act, and other
members have noted, some of these things - for example, the car wrecks left on
streets in front of property, or you have car wrecks on private property itself,
or you have a very untidy and unkept front yard or back yard that becomes a
nuisance to the people in the neighbourhood who want to keep their property in
good shape.
We also note here people who have things on their property that can pose
hazards. Mr. Speaker, we know of cases where children have been hurt and, in
some cases, children have died because they have wondered onto property and have
been victims of accidents which could have been prevented if the owners and
others had made sure that the property was properly kept and these hazards were
eliminated or reduced. Mr. Speaker, we cannot protect our children from all
things in a municipality but certainly we can make sure that if a child or an
adult goes onto a piece of property that the hazards are reduced as much as we
can possibly make happen under the force of law.
Mr. Speaker, we note as well that when the minister gave the example he
mentioned the practice of the commercial waste collectors collecting their big
containers at very odd hours. I had a complaint just a while ago from my
constituency where there was a collection system going on at 6:00 o'clock in
the morning. Mr. Speaker, that becomes a bit of a nuisance to people in the
neighborhood when you hear those large vehicles, these collection machines, out
in front of a piece of property making the collection at 6:00 a.m. Certainly, we
can make regulations on that.
What this bill does is give the mayor and the councillors in these
municipalities the power to be able to go and get some redress; to make people
remember that if you are going to go and commit these offences there will be
consequences.
However, I did want to note a couple of matters that I would like to bring to
the attention of the House. For example, it is very important when we talk about
the officers or the officials who will go out and make those decisions, whether
to issue a ticket or not to issue a ticket. We should make sure that all
municipalities have some form of regulation but we also should make sure that
these regulations are communicated to people in the municipality and that the
officers themselves have some degree of consistent training, so we do not have
one officer doing an aggressive kind of enforcement, another officer not being
as aggressive or for that matter, we should make sure that all of the officers
have the same level of training so that we have some consistency.
I note as well here that there is a thirty-day period between the time that a
ticket is issued and an appeal can be made to a provincial court judge. In some
cases, and in most cases, the thirty-day appeal period is quite acceptable.
However, in some cases you cannot find the owner of a piece of property and in
some instances it can take a longer time to find that for various reasons. The
owners may have moved, their mailing address may have changed, and there is a
need to use some discretion in some cases. Of course, the concept here is that
these offences, if they are not paid immediately, will become liens against the
owners of the property.
Mr. Speaker, there may be some consideration as well for the owners of the
property because if you have property rented then you cannot take responsibility
for everything that a tenant does. There has to be some recognition that the
tenants themselves have to be somewhat responsible. So, we have to be careful
what we put on the owners of the property to make sure it is something that they
have control over. For example, if a piece of property has a very untidy yard,
that might be the responsibility of the property owner, providing it is
something over which he has control. However, not in all circumstances is the
owner able to go and immediately address that problem. So we have to be very
careful that we make sure that owners are going to be penalized justly. In some
cases, make sure that the owners are not being held liable for things that
should be property charged to tenants or to other people who might have an
interest in that property.
The other thing that happens is when you have - for example, a wrecked car
that is parked in front of a piece of property. It may be just abandoned. It may
be on public property but we have to be very careful that we make sure that when
we issue those tickets, we issue them to the right people so that we do not have
an example of where some property owner finds that a ticket has been issued, he
knows nothing about it until the next year when his assessment comes out. He
finds out that he has a ticket for x number of dollars that is added to his
property tax, only to find out that it is not something he had any control over
whatsoever. So, we need to use the powers that are included in this particular
piece of legislation with some discretion, with some degree of wisdom, and that
only comes about if there is proper training for the municipal enforcement
officers.
In my time as the Mayor of Mount Pearl, I can say that we had some very good
municipal officers who did a very good job, but there were occasions when we had
people who were either too forgiving, and in some cases, we had people who were
far to aggressive. So I say again, we have to make sure that we do have a
consistent and a balanced approach.
I also want to note here that these regulations, and what the offences that
are going to be included, should be communicated to all property owners as
quickly as possible. For example, by the first or second week of January every
municipality in this Province will be sending out their tax bills. The minister
should make sure and encourage all municipalities to send out in the tax bills,
to the owners of the property, a statement clearly saying what these offences
will include. For example, you cannot go and have this bill come into effect and
not have any communication with the owners of properties. So I am calling upon
the minister to use his office to encourage the municipalities - I am calling
upon the Federation of Municipalities to use their good offices to make sure
that there is an appropriate communication plan put in place to make sure that
the property owners have knowledge of the changes that is going to occur when
this bill comes into effect.
Mr. Speaker, this also is an opportunity for us to look at some of the
issues. We are talking about principles of the bill, and, as my colleague from
Baie Verte has mentioned, all is not well with municipal government in
Newfoundland and Labrador. The member comes from a rural area and he has talked
in our caucus repeatedly, as have other members in this caucus, about Municipal
Operating Grants. We have talked about the complete breakdown of municipal
infrastructure.
We heard tell of, just a few weeks ago, two municipalities in this Province
that have decided they want to be unincorporated, because, they say: We don't
have the money. Our municipalities cannot collect the taxes. Our people do not
have any employment in our community. We cannot continue on. They said they
would be better off if they were unincorporated.
Madam Speaker, this is a very, very sad and regrettable occurrence, when you
have municipalities saying they would rather be unincorporated, not have these
powers at all, because other towns which are not incorporated are better off
than they are.
I say to the minister, in all sincerity, look at what is happening in some of
our smaller communities. When you have municipalities which are making a choice,
they would rather be unincorporated, they would rather have no municipal
government whatsoever, than to have an incorporation and a council and then find
they have no money, no power, and no means to be able to address the real issues
they have to deal with day after day after day.
Then, when they look to the next town, which is not incorporated at all, they
see a higher standard of services. Therefore, in some cases, some towns have
been penalized for being incorporated. They have been penalized for taking
leadership in their municipalities. When that kind of thing happens, there is a
message there to all of us: Let's make sure that when we have municipalities
that are incorporated, trying to do the best that they can in their communities,
that we do support them, that we do make sure that they have some operating
money to be able to provide the services that their people deserve, that their
people need, and that their people should expect from their local government.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to make note here, when we are saying this as well:
Let's look at our special circumstance people. Let's remember that we have
an aging population. We have a lot of seniors out there who are trying their
best to stay in their own homes. They are trying to make sure that they can live
in harmony in their own municipality in their own homes. Let's make sure that
we do everything we can to facilitate that. Let's not forget these people, our
seniors, our low-income families, and all these other people who are trying to
make their municipalities work.
Yes, I believe that the principle of this bill is good. It does give the
municipalities listed here, and the authorities listed under the Urban and Rural
Planning Act, extra powers to do certain things for certain offences, but let's
make sure that we continue to support our municipalities. Let's make sure we
support them, particularly our rural municipalities who are finding that they
are, today, able to provide a lower level of service than they could ten years
ago. They are not going forward; they are actually going backwards. When we have
some municipalities that want to be unincorporated, then there is a message here
for all of us.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a step in the right direction but we have to keep
in mind that all is not well in all municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am standing to speak on this bill today. Obviously, as the
Minister of Mines and Energy pointed out, I represent a district in St. John's
as well, and I have had several calls from individuals who have had problems
with their neighbours, primarily students in most cases, who are renting, having
parties on Friday and Saturday nights, whatever the case may be, creating a
disturbance into the wee hours of the morning and causing headaches for their
neighbours. The city virtually had very little authority, very little power, to
deal with this nuisance in the past.
At this point, this bill will give authority to municipalities and give them
the ability and the clout to address some of the problems that residents
experience throughout the city and throughout the Province, throughout all
municipalities - problems such as noise bylaws, neighbour properties, properties
in disrepair, fences and grounds in disrepair. Now the municipalities have the
ability to significantly and meaningfully go in and do something about it.
Municipalities have the ability to go in and ticket a property owner for a
nuisance. Essentially, if the property owner does not comply with the ticket,
they have the ability then to put a lien on that person's property until the
ticket is paid.
This bill, essentially, will take care of a number of problems that are being
experienced by municipalities. In the downtown area of St. John's - I am not
sure if it covers, and maybe the minister can speak to this; I am not sure if it
deals with the problem - I know a lot of downtown homeowners have complaints on
a regular basis, with noise that comes from the downtown area because of night
clubs and so on, primarily in the summer months. It is of concern to people who
are living on Queen's Road, New Gower Street, Water Street, and even in areas
like Livingstone Street and Lime Street and those areas where the residents in
those areas, particularly senior citizens and those with small children, find
that the loud noise is quite a nuisance. They find that the noise coming from
the downtown area creates quite a problem for them, and the city has not been
very effective in being able to deal with that.
I have had calls from a number of residents who have experienced similar
problems with private parties. So I know this act will cover private parties and
private property. I am not sure if it will cover commercial properties in the
same manner. Maybe the minister can answer that when he stands to his feet.
Hopefully, with this new act - and it covers the Cities of Mount Pearl,
Corner Brook and the City of St. John's as well as all municipalities, urban
and rural, throughout the Province - will, by giving the authority to the
municipalities to deal with some of these issues, be of great help and
assistance to those municipalities, and obviously to the people throughout the
Province as well.
I think most people in the House, maybe all people, will support this bill
and the intent of the bill. I am not sure, like I say, on commercial property,
if it applies to commercial property as well, but I know, on residential
property, any unpaid tickets could be assessed against the property and property
tax assessments until these tickets are paid.
Mr. Speaker, I, for one, will be supporting this bill.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to speak for a few minutes in debate on Bill 17,
An Act to Amend
the City of Corner Brook Act, the City of Mount Pearl Act, the City of St. John's
Act, the Municipalities Act, 1999 and the Urban and Rural Planning Act, 2000.
These amendments are designed to give these municipalities the right to issue
violation tickets for bylaw offences. I want to say, first of all, that we
support in principle this move. There are lots of reasons why, and other members
have spoken to how this works, that the difficulty of enforcement of bylaws
requires the municipality to take someone to court and actually get the court to
get a conviction and to get any action. The notion of ticketing is one that we
accept for parking violations, we accept it for speeding violations and other
violations, and it does give a little bit more direct deterrence, I guess, to an
individual who has a ticket. The ticket indicates that you have been charged
with an offence and the fine is such and such. You have a choice in those
tickets, to either pay your ticket to the relevant authority or you can go and
contest it. That is a scheme that I support but, in looking at the bill - and I
have had some discussions with the minister - I have a concern about the way
that it is handled in this particular legislation.
Pretty clearly there is a need to have a ticketing situation for someone,
whether there is a noise bylaw or whether someone is breaching a littering bylaw
by having garbage strewn around their property or around the sidewalk, that
ticketing is a way to do that rather than have to take people to court through a
lengthy and uncertain process and a long process. I have a problem, and I
pointed it out to the minister with reference to each of those acts, the scheme
that is set up there is that if a person does not like the fact that they got a
ticket, they have to appeal to a provincial court judge. For example, in clause
2(
g) of the first reference here to the City of Corner Brook, it says,
"...that an appeal may be made to a Provincial Court judge within 30 days
of the issuance of the violation ticket."
That, Madam Speaker, when you say that you can appeal to a court, the
implication there is that you have already been found guilty of it and that you
are appealing the fact that you got the ticket, you are appealing the
conviction, and that is fundamentally wrong in my view. A person who wishes to
pay the ticket can certainly go and pay it and recognize that they have been in
violation of the bylaw, pay their fine and carry on and hopefully be more
vigilant in the future about obeying town or city bylaws, but if they do not
believe that they have been properly given the ticket, they should not have to
appeal and, by implication, have the onus of proving that they were innocent.
There should be a process whereby if your ticket is contested then it must be
proven in a court.
Now, in looking at that, I have had a look at the
Summary Proceedings Act,
which we changed here in this House quite a few years ago now, in trying to look
at how would you have the ticketing offences work and parking tickets under the
Highway Traffic Act or other acts, and how this ticketing system would work so
as you can contest a ticket and have the matter go before a court, if you so
wished. Essentially, the person who gave the ticket would have to prove, in the
normal manner, that a person had been in violation of the act and you have the
right to defend yourself and all of those normal safeguards of legal process. I
noticed, Madam Speaker, that these were really absent in this situation here,
whereas instead of having the person who gave the ticket, the bylaw enforcement
officer go to the court and testify, demonstrate that you have been in violation
of the bylaw, you had to appeal, and the implication being that you had to show
to the court that you did not violate the act, instead of the other way around.
I have spoken with the minister on that, and it appears that he has had
discussions with his officials. We may look at changing the wording of that in
committee so that there will be a process whereby if a person is dissatisfied or
wishes to contest the issuing of a ticket, that that matter would then be
resolved by the provincial court judge. There is no exact wording worked out
yet, as to what might be the best way to word that, but I imagine, it will be
something similar to what we have in the
Summary Proceedings Act. We leave that
to the officials and to the Law Clerks to come up with an appropriate wording
that would satisfy the objection and the concern that I am rasing here now.
Other than that, Madam Speaker, I think that the bill is a good one. I think
it has been, as others have said, a long time coming. There have been requests
by the City of St. John's, I know for many years, and other municipalities as
well. The Federation of Municipalities has been urging the government, for a
number of years, to get moving on this and to bring it before the House.
As the Minister of Mines and Energy has said, he had it on his plate when he
was Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Finance, and now the current
minister is bringing it forward for debate. I think it is timely that we do
that, to allow - much of the stuff is new since that type of thing, whether it
be littering, whether it be violations of noise bylaws, whether it be some
things as simple, I suppose, as people putting garbage out when they are not
supposed to. That is a problem, I know, in the City of St. John's where
garbage is out the night before the garbage comes to be collected, and there are
animals - seagulls seem to like garbage a lot here in St. John's. Maybe they
travel from Robin Hood Bay and come around and swoop around the town and see
what garbage is available. They are the St. John's seagulls, and they tend to
go and strew garbage all over the place because people put their garbage out the
night before.
MR. MANNING: I can say our (inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: I understand that in the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's
district that seagulls there are very well behaved and they do not bother
anybody's garbage. They have a sanctuary for them down there, for not only the
seagulls but all the birds, and they stick to their sanctuary, they don't need
to come looking for garbage. The St. John's corner boy seagulls are a very
rowdy bunch and they are quite happy to disturb garbage if you put it out. That
is the kind of thing that ticketing offences would relate to, and I think it can
act as a deterrent to people who continue making a nuisance of themselves by
doing that sort of thing.
So, I want to say I support this move, with the reservation that I mentioned,
about the process for contesting a ticket if you feel that you have been wrongly
ticketed. I am sure that the minister and I, in discussions with the Law Clerks
as to appropriate wordi