December 16, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 46

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair is now prepared to rule on a point of privilege that was raised by

the hon. the Opposition House Leader on Tuesday, December 10. The hon. the

member's point of privilege arises out of what he considers to be a breach of

the Financial Administration Act.

The requirements of the law in this instance are a matter of dispute between

the Official Opposition and the government. It has been ruled on numerous

occasions that the legality of an action by a member or by the government is not

an issue on which the Chair can rule, and the Chair does not rule on points of

law.

For members' reference, I refer them to Speaker Lamoureux in the House of

Commons Debates on March 15, 1967, page 14015, in which the ruling was similar;

Speaker Jerome in the House of Commons Debates, June 19, 1978, pages 6525 and

6526; Speaker Sauv in the House of Commons Debates on March 27, 1981, pages

8716 and 8717; and on February 10 a similar ruling in 1983 on page 22714. I also

refer members to Beauchesne 31.(9).

In the opinion of the Chair, based on these references, no prima facie case

of breach of privilege has been established.

As well, on December 10, the hon. the Minister of Finance raised a point of

order concerning allegations of members of the Opposition, that the hon. the

minister had broken the law. This point of order, of course, relates to the

circumstance that I just cited in the point of privilege raised by the hon. the

Opposition House Leader, on which the Chair has just ruled.

It is the opinion of the Chair that the hon. the minister and the Official

Opposition disagree about the requirements of the law and that the matter is a

difference of opinion between two hon. members. The hon. the minister has taken,

of course, the opportunity to explain the government's point of view on this

matter, and, obviously, there is no point of order.

On Thursday, December 12, the hon. the Premier raised a point of order

concerning the approach of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition during Oral

Question Period relating to a disclaimer in a contract with Inco respecting the

Voisey's Bay development. I have reviewed Hansard and can find nothing out of

order in the questioning. It seems that there is a difference of opinion again

between the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition concerning the

interpretation of a provision in a document, and a difference of opinion is not

a point of order.

As well, on Thursday, December 12, the hon. the Opposition House Leader rose

on a point of order concerning comments made by the hon. the Member for Humber

East. I have reviewed the transcripts of Oral Question Period in Hansard and can

find no unparliamentary comments by the hon. the Member for Humber East.

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the first time in its history, a Newfoundland and Labrador forester has

been named President of the Canadian Institute of Forestry.

Mr. Leonard Moores, Director of Ecosystem Health with the Corner Brook office

of the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, has been named the 2003

President of the Canadian Institute of Forestry. Previously, Mr. Moores served

as the first vice-president of that organization.

The Canadian Institute of Forestry is a professional forestry organization

with a national membership of some 2,700 foresters, forest technicians and

forest technologist, forest educators and scientists and others with a

professional interest in forestry.

Leonard has worked with the Newfoundland and Labrador Forest Service for the

past twenty-one years, having graduated from the University of New Brunswick in

1981 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Forestry and from the Lakehead

University in 2001 with a Master of Science in Forestry.

Mr. Moores has published numerous papers on forest site classification,

forest management planning and forest policy, and is currently Chair of the

Advisory Committee for the Forestry Technician Program at the College of the

North Atlantic.

At the community level, Mr. Moores has been a scout leader for twenty years

and is currently co-ordinator and coach of the Corner Brook Special Olympics

Program and treasurer of the Corner Brook Branch of the Autism Society of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in

congratulating Mr. Leonard Moores in being named President of the Canadian

Institute of Forestry for the year 2003.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to offer congratulations to the school community of Roncalli Central

High, Avondale, for taking a bold curriculum initiative in technology. Mr.

Brendan Veitch, school principal, and his staff, have adopted a vision based on

the view that the new technology can be a powerful, liberating force for

teachers and students and have actioned a plan to bring technology into the

classroom.

Mr. Speaker, at a school assembly on Friday past, I, along with my colleague,

Mr. Terry French, the Member for Conception Bay South, joined with

representatives of business, community and government to celebrate the school's

acceptance into Canada's Network of Innovative Schools. Mr. Randy Williams,

Industry Canada, acknowledged this tremendous feat of winning such a prestigious

award, presenting a banner to commemorate the event.

The Roncalli Rappers, a student group, marked the occasion with a unique

creative song, "We're Innovative", to the absolute delight of the

crowd. Teachers were presented with certificates of merit for completing the

program Intel Teach to the Future, a commitment they made on their own time at

their own expense.

Mr. and Mrs. Fred and Agnes Lewis of Holyrood, life long supporters of youth

initiatives in the area, were recognized for their $5,000 donation to the

project. Coupled with this was the acknowledgment of a corporate sponsor,

Canadian Helicopters Corporation, of $20,000. Mr. Craig Dobbin and his wife, Mrs

Elaine Dobbin, a former resident of Holyrood, took a very keen interest in this

project. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, the company representative, Mr.

Chris Flannigan, in accepting a plaque on behalf of the company, promoted

literacy, indicating it was a piece of writing that was the catalyst for this

donation, the script for the movie, The Red Door , starring Kiefer

Sutherland, which sparked the company's involvement. Evidently, movie

producers filmed the movie at the Dobbin's home at Beachy Cove on condition

they donate $10,000 to the school. The company matched the amount for a total of

$20,000.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the members of this House join with me in

congratulating the school community of Roncalli Central High for their foresight

and determination to provide their students with the technology skills and

resources to be the best they can be, and to their partners, especially Fred and

Agnes Lewis, Craig and Elaine Dobbin of Canadian Helicopter, for their

commitment to the youth of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on this past Friday Mr. John Bishop of Tilton celebrated his

ninety-first birthday.

Mr. Bishop started working as a plasterer/painter in 1939 in Gander and

remained employed in his trade until his retirement at age seventy-three.

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that he mentioned to me on Friday

that when he traveled to Gander for the very first time some forty people went

in their looking for work. They went by train and they would not go into Gander

because they knew that they would be sent back home, so they got off in Appleton

and walked all the way. What an inspiration for young people today.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, he kept busy in his profession after retiring. For

example, just prior to his ninetieth birthday, he plastered the basement

apartment of his own home.

I am pleased to report that Mr. Bishop still enjoys excellent health and is

able to attend various functions in the community.

Mr. Speaker, people like Mr. Bishop are an inspiration to us all and I would

ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating him on his

ninety-first birthday.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to take this opportunity today to send congratulations to a very

special couple in my district, Roland and Ina Abbott of Musgrave Harbour who

celebrated their sixty-seventh wedding anniversary on Thursday, December 12.

They were married at the Salvation Army Citadel in Musgrave Harbour December 12,

Roland, when he was seven years old, attended the Salvation Army school and

received his education up to Grade 10. In 1932, he attended the Salvation Army

College in St. John's and graduated with Grade 11. He taught day school for a

short period and then on to Memorial University where he graduated. He retired

from teaching June, 1969 after thirty-nine-and-a-half years. In 1980, he helped

to organize the Central Newfoundland Retired Teachers' Association and became

its first vice-president. He thought in several outport communities across the

Province and spent nine years in Peterview where the new school of 1963 was

named in his honour, the R.W. Abbott Academy.

When he returned to Musgrave Harbour, he served as a councillor for a term

and later became the Town Clerk for eight years. It was during this time he

arranged for the Newfoundland Library Board to have a library located there

called the John B. Wheeler Library and he became the first chairman of the local

board. During the same period with the Town Council, he negotiated with the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, by permission of Council, to organize a Volunteer

Fire Brigade for the town. In 1969, he was appointed Justice of the Peace by the

Department of Justice. He is a member of the Masonic Lodge of Gander; member of

the Oddfellows of the Maritime Provinces; past Grand Master of the Grand Black

Chapter of Newfoundland.

Roland is the author of two books, one entitled Three Seas in which he

tells the stories about shipwrecks on the Northeast Coast, and the other one, The

Million Dollar Rock about the Offer Wadham Islands.

Mr. Abbott is what the town considers our local historian. He has provided

many families with information concerning their family tree. He is a resource

person for the local school students when needing information on past community

events.

Mr. Speaker, while all of that is about Mr. Abbott, no doubt behind every

good man there is a good woman.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARDING: I ask the members of this House today -

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARDING: - to join with me in offering congratulations to Roland and

Ina Abbott on their sixty-seventh wedding anniversary.

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: Mr. Speaker, recently I had the honour of joining MP John

Efford to be the Honourary Co-Patron of this year's Conception Bay North

Jingle Bell Walk held by the Arthritis Society. Although the weather did not

co-operate, sixty walkers turned out for the event and nearly $2,000 was raised

for research and education programs endorsed by the Arthritis Society and for

the purchase of a piece of equipment for the Carbonear Hospital Physiotherapy

Department.

This year's Jingle Bell Walk was organized by Ruth Brown of Bay Roberts and

Darrell Swain of Carbonear, with help from many volunteers. I should also note

that great entertainment was provided that afternoon by local Country-Bluegrass

band, The Country Buddies.

The Arthritis Society is the only organization in Canada dedicated to finding

treatments, and in time cures, for the over 100 different forms of Arthritis. As

well, the society administers the Arthritis Self-Management Program, and has

several groups operating in the area, to assist those living with arthritis and

cope with the problems presented by this disease.

Arthritis is commonly thought to be a disease for the elderly or those with a

hard-working life behind them. The fact is, arthritis, in its juvenile forms,

such as Juvenile Rheumatoid, can affect children and there are several

individuals living with this disease in the CBN area. Osteoporosis and

Osteoarthritis are the more frequent forms and are quite serious in their own

right and can greatly diminish a person's quality of life.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in commending the organizers

of the Conception Bay North Jingle Bell Walk and the people who participated in

this very successful event.

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 pay tribute to a person I have never met, but whose actions

are certainly worthy of note. The person I am speaking of is a

twenty-four-year-old hockey player named Mike Minard from Hamilton, Ontario, who

has a very positive impact on many young sick children in our Province.

A very moving story was in Sunday's edition of The Telegram

outlining Mr. Minard's involvement, with emphasis on particularly one young

girl from our Province. One day after vising a Hamilton hospital he decided he

wanted to do something to make a different. He created Mini's Munchkins, he

purchased a block of tickets to donate to children's hospitals so kids could

come and watch the games. Following the games, he would meet the children, sign

autographs and make them forget their personal situations for awhile.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Jack Hand, Director of Pediatric Oncology at the hospital,

was quoted as saying, "Sometimes it was hard to get a smile on those kids'

faces, but when Mike appeared, we would see a smile we hadn't seen in weeks.

Mr. Speaker, Mike Minard is hoping to return to St. John's this year, and

we certainly hope he will. One of Mike's reasons for doing what he does is

simple. "I just like making kids smile," he said.

During his stay here in St. John's he met an eight-year-old girl names

Amanda Joy from Mount Pearl who was suffering from cancer. A bond formed between

them that will last forever. The full, very emotional story can be read in

Sunday's Telegram .

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in acknowledging Mr. Minard's

positive involvement with sick children in our Province and elsewhere. If it is

in order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this House to send a letter to Mr.

Minard thanking him, on behalf of all of us, for his unselfish commitment and

being an inspiration to sick children in our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy made

statements that I was misleading the public regarding Voisey's Bay, as their

method of counterattacking the problems that I identified in the signed

documentation. Unfortunately for them, and unlike the Lower Churchill, the

actual signed document is now in the hands of the public, so that they can see

the facts for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, to prevent any confusion, my questions for the Minister of Mines

and Energy will be very straightforward.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister confirm for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador that there is no commitment from Inco that there will definitely be an

underground mine and it will employ 800 people at Voisey's Bay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure what the basis or what the point of the question really is. The

fact of the matter is that the Statement of Principles was announced on June 11,

and the Statement of Principles, in and of themselves, outline very clearly a

progression of events that will lead to an eventual thirty year lifespan of a

mining operation at Voisey's Bay, based on about eighty million tons of known

reserve out of a potential 130 million tons of known and inferred reserves, so

that means it could be much longer than thirty years.

Over that period of time, Mr. Speaker, a number of events will take place

commencing with what happened this summer, ramping up of work in Voisey's Bay

and starting the work in Argentia to get that site ready for a major R and D

program.

The fact of the matter is this: based on the schedules that have been laid

out, we fully expect - because we have the written commitments with guarantees

to back them up and penalties that are enforceable if performance does not

happen - that project to proceed as outlined, as announced, and as further

articulated and reinforced in the final and binding legal agreements that the

hon. member refers to.

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, and I will ask the question again.

It will again be a very simple, very straightforward question, and I will ask

the minister for a very simple yes or no.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, that in the signed agreement there is no commitment

from Inco that there will definitely be an underground mine and it will employ

800 people? Yes or no, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statement of Principles and the binding agreements, I can confirm the exact

opposite to the hon. member: that, in fact, there will be an underground

exploration program carried out. It will be part of a series of events that are

planned as per the Statement of Principles on the final and legal binding

agreements.

Now, if the hon. member is asking me to confirm that pieces of the planet

will not break off over the next thirty years, and events that are unknown to

mankind heretofore will not happen, then I cannot confirm that, but I can

confirm to him this: that we have such a fantastic deal on the development of

Voisey's Bay that I, along with this government, and along with the vast

majority of the people of the Province, support the proposition that we have;

and on the weekend I did issue a press release, and in the final paragraph I

asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, together with his party over there,

to, for once, get on the side of the people of the Province and join with the

majority of the people of the Province in supporting a fantastic project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked that question is that the hon. the minister

on Friday released a press release that said the Opposition Leader - being

myself - misleads the public regarding Voisey's Bay. Minister Matthews said,

comments by the leader concerning future job figures are misleading -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- and incorrect.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: He then pointed out that during Question Period I indicated

that there was no commitment by Inco.

I ask you now, Minister, why you are issuing a press statement saying that I

am misleading the public when I have asked you twice the same question and you

have refused to acknowledge that in fact there is no commitment from Inco for an

underground mine at Voisey's Bay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we see -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We see a continuation of the same desperate tactic that was used before. When

the Leader of the Opposition is shown to be wrong, he runs out to the media and

calls it personal attacks. That is his defense every time, Mr. Speaker; it is

known tactic in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: the Leader of the Opposition,

today, is trying to use the language about commitments for 800 jobs in the

underground in the year 2016, 2017, 2018. What he knows to be a fact - and this

is the point that we have been making Mr. Speaker - what he knows to be a fact -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, what he knows to be a fact and what he is

trying to characterize it as is absolutely incorrect. He is trying to use the

word commitment. The language - and he knows this because he studied it in

detail - the language in the Statement of Principles in

section 19 talked about

the underground operation in the years 2016 and beyond being subject to

completion of an underground exploration program.

No one said it was going to happen regardless. You have to prove that

something is there. It is a phased-in program, Mr. Speaker. Now he is trying to

suggest that there is some difference between that language which was in the

Statement of Principles and similar language in the legally binding agreements.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: It is exactly the same, Mr. Speaker. He knows it and he

is trying to mislead and misrepresent the information.

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: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Mines and Energy a

specific question as to why he issued the press release, and the Premier

answered it for him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: He refused to stand on his feet and explain why he told the

public (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Shame on you, Minister.

Another very simple, very straightforward question for the Minister of Mines

and Energy: Will the minister confirm for the people of Argentia that there will

definitely be a processing plant in Argentia? Yes or no, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am at a grave loss as to understand why the Opposition would be trying to,

at this point in the year if no other point -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - instill such a sense of potential insecurity in the minds

of the people of Argentia who, up until this point in the year, I would say,

have had a very, very circumstance in terms of the announcement.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the question that the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition just asked was answered clearly by the Premier last

week. I would only be repeating myself and repeating him if I answered it again.

But, for greater certainty, just so he will not say I did not answer the

question, there is an absolute commitment to put the R and D program first, and

then the processing facility in Argentia subject to meeting all of the normal

things that have to be met; the main one being, Mr. Speaker, the passing of the

environmental assessment process.

If the hon. Leader of the Opposition suggests that we should either do away

with the environmental assessment process or that we should write laws that

guarantee us a certain outcome, well, we are not into that type of activity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: We have confidence in the process that we have in place. We

have confidence in the proponent who says they want to build this plant in

Argentia -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - and we believe it will happen to the greater good of all

of the people of the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to take his seat.

MR. MATTHEWS: - notwithstanding those who fear it will happen indeed.

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.

So, Mr. Speaker, the people of Argentia have an absolute commitment subject

to, and the underground mine is subject to, if. Those are not absolute

commitments, Minister.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier, in Question Period, was asked if Inco

could walk away from a hydromet plant on the basis of the words economically

feasible contained in

Article 4.6 of the signed deal and he said, absolutely,

positively, no.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that

Article 4.6 does, in fact, state

that the construction of a hydromet plant is subject to economic feasability?

Yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Again, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and a bit disappointed

at the tenor of the questions that suggest there is doubt and uncertainty that

does not, in fact, exist as being asked at this point in time in this

Legislature. I am sure it does nothing for the people in Argentia or for the

member who is trying, I suppose, in his own way, to instill some level of

confidence in the people out there with respect to the economy.

What I can confirm to the hon. member is this: We are certain, we are 100 per

cent certain - we are 100 per cent certain - that there will be constructed, at

Argentia, a processing facility as per the Statement of Principles and the

agreement that has been signed. As I said in the House of Assembly when we were

debating this issue, I will take the 98 per cent chance of having a hydromet

plant full-blown there at a cost of $800 million, but I will also take the 100

per cent guarantee, because we have taken that guarantee, of having at least a

$750 million processing plant built there as per the

schedule that has been

agreed to, within the time frames that have been agreed to, and for the benefit

of the people who will have the good fortune of accessing employment and

business opportunities from it. We have no doubt that the Voisey's Bay deal -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - is one of the finest, if not the finest, deal that has

ever been struck by any government in this Province on behalf of their people,

and we look forward to seeing it happen as announced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we have an estimated $750 million facility or

some other facility, similar facility, which is not defined in the agreement.

That is what we have, Minister.

Mr. Speaker, in Question Period last week as well the Premier was asked to

explain why the words, committed to processing Voisey's Bay concentrate in the

Province, which were in the Statement of Principles, had been in fact deleted

from the signed deal. He answered, "...it absolutely must be processed - in

Newfoundland and Labrador under the legally binding agreements."

Mr. Speaker, would the minister confirm that if there is no hydromet plant

and there is a nickel matte plant or some other facility, in fact, all of the

Voisey's Bay concentrate could leave the Province and it will not absolutely

be processed here as the Premier indicated? Yes or no, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the hydromet plant, which

is a virtual guarantee, at least 98 per cent certain, or a full-blown processing

plant of another type will be built in Argentia within the time frame starting

in 2008, being completed in 2011 or 2012 as the Statement of Principles has

announced.

I would say to the hon. member: If he would spend his time viewing this

project as being what it is, an excellent project on behalf of the people of the

Province, and put some effort into promoting the well-being of this project on

behalf of the well-being of the people of the Province, his time would be much

better served, the people of the Province would be much better served, and I

think it would only add and enhance his stature as the Leader of the Opposition

who would finally be saying to the people of the Province: We recognize,

finally, a good deal when we see it, and notwithstanding what we might have

wanted to see done or what we would have done if we were there, the fact of the

matter is, the deal is done, it is a great deal. Seventy-plus per cent of the

people of the Province support it, 26 per cent of the people have questions with

it, but on balance we look forward to seeing it move forward with the full-blown

plant -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - and with the final finished nickel product coming out of

the end of that for the next thirty years for sale right around the world so

that we get our taxes, we get our jobs, we get our royalties (inaudible).

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: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It would enhance your stature as a minister, Minister, if you did not release

press releases indicating that I was trying to mislead the people of this

Province, when in fact all I am doing is giving the details and asking the

questions that you wanted a week ago and now you do not want to hear. That is

the bottom line.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: I think your response to the two flubs that the Premier

made in the House of Assembly are basically that he was absolutely wrong in his

answers. Isn't that correct?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: So, in fact, the Premier was wrong in both of his answers.

Isn't that correct, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, under

Article 6 of the signed agreement, the

government has committed to give Inco the lowest industrial electrical rate in

the Province. Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that this rate to this

multi-billion dollar company is actually subsidized by the people of our

Province? Yes or no, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the

preamble to the question,

let me say this: that

whereas the Leader of the Opposition last week raised the

issue of the job numbers not being appropriately identified in the final and

binding legal agreements, the fact of the matter is that the 800 jobs were

appropriately and were fully mentioned and referenced and included in the final

and binding legal agreements.

Now, I am not suggesting any more than this: that he suggested they were not

there, and I am telling the people of the Province, the Premier has told the

people of the Province, that they are there. That all I would say to that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: With respect to the electricity rate, let me say this to

the hon. member: that we will no more or no less provide power, subsidized or

otherwise, to the Inco operation than we are doing for the North Atlantic

Refinery, that we are doing for any of the paper mills in the Province, or any

other major heavy industrial user that will come to the Province. The fact of

the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that we have an industrial rate in the Province. It

currently and has for a long time applied to heavy industrial users and it will

similarly apply to this particular project as we have committed in the Statement

of Principles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: So Inco's electricity will be subsidized on the backs of

the people of this Province. That is your answer, Minister, isn't it?

Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that the test of economic feasibility

is also used for Inco to determine when the mine ceases to operate under the

definition of cessation of mining operations?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I confess, I did not hear the question clearly. I would be happy if he would

repeat it and I would attempt to answer it. I am sorry about that.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that the test of

economic feasibility is also used for Inco to determine when the mine ceases to

operate under the definition of cessation of mining operations? Yes or no,

Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the development of this project is

fundamentally premised on it being an economically sound business case that

allows it to move forward, and any part of the operation is always subject to

economic viability. Nobody is going to do anything against which they are going

to be permanently and consistently losing money. The fact of the matter is, that

would be a very imprudent and a very stupid business person who would do

something like that.

The mine in Labrador will cease when it will cease. We think it will be

thirty-plus years. Based on everything we know, and on all of the data we have

and on all of the independent analysis that we have received with respect to

that reserve, that ore body, laying that against projected prices of nickel out

for the next thirty to forty years, we have every confidence that it will move

forward for that length of time. At some point, mines always cease because they

become economically unviable. Unfortunately that is the circumstance, and that

day begins, that clock begins to tick, the first day that the mine opens.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: This is a non-renewable resource. That is why we have

sought to get, and in fact we have gotten, such a fantastic deal for the people

of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to take his seat.

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, would the minister agree that, given that Inco is not obliged to

build a smelter, can walk away from a hydromet on technical or economic

feasibility, can build some other facility that has yet to be defined, can

process all Voisey's Bay concentrate outside our Province, and has the option

to walk away from the underground mine, that all these exit mechanisms by Inco

can be considered off-ramps or loopholes in the agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have the opportunity, but I know Question Period is not the

venue or the time for it, to also walk the Leader of the Opposition through this

project. What I would say to him is that the starting point is this. I would say

that Inco will have a $1 billion expenditure having been made in this Province

before they get one five cents worth of nickel out of this project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: That is not a bad circumstance to start with, when you have

a company that is prepared to spend $1 billion of their capital without getting

ten cents out of the ground, and with a whole bunch of commitments along the way

that ensure we are always ahead of the game, they are always behind the game, in

terms of getting to the final, finished processing plant.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great project.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: This is a circumstance where I believe again - and it may

be my last opportunity to do so, so I will take the opportunity to do it - I

would ask the Leader of the Opposition to join with the people of the Province

in celebrating, in 2002, a great project.

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.

My questions today are for the Premier.

The people of the Placentia-Argentia area have been waiting a long time for

the Voisey's Bay development to come to their area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: They have been left with the impression many times that

economic benefits and employment opportunities are just around the corner.

On Wednesday, December 11, the Premier answered questions for the Leader of

the Opposition in regards to the development at Argentia. He said, and I quote,

"They have already started to open the office. They have already started to

fence in the ground. They have already starting to put down the warehouse

space." Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Premier is aware, but this is not

accurate. There is no office open in the Argentia-Placentia area, there is no

fence being constructed, and they are definitely not started to put down the

warehouse space.

I would like to ask the Premier: Can you tell us, today, when exactly these

activities will begin, what are the completion dates for these projects, and, as

most people in area ask me, when are people going to work in Argentia?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the hon. member that, in my commentary, I did not used the words

that he just used. I do know for a fact, as does he, as the member for the area,

that the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company has been into prolonged and detailed

discussions with the Argentia Management Authority, to have the office space

renovated in the office building. He knows where it is. I believe he has

actually been there. I believe he has actually been to the site where the office

is about to be opened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, what I did say is, that there are plans to

fence the property. I did not say they were already fencing the property. Now he

is learning from his star there, I suppose, his idol, the Leader of the

Opposition, in trying to misrepresent the words. I did not say the fence was

being erected. He knows because he does know the plans, because he did vote for

the project, and he does hope that it occurs in Argentia, that there are plans

to fence the property and there are plans to put up the warehouse space. The

hon. member, Mr. Speaker, has had the same discussions with the Voisey's Bay

Nickel Company officials as I have had, and he knows what I said to be an

absolute fact. Why he would now stand up, because the Leader of the Opposition

asked him to, to stand up and try to talk about it, Mr. Speaker - he knows that

he now is trying to misrepresent the facts, as well -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - because the knows the difference of what he just said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

& St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to let the Premier know that my idol is not in this

building.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I refer to Hansard of December 11, and I quote

the Premier, "They have already started to open the office."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: "They are already starting to fence in the ground. They

are already starting to put down the warehouse space."

Mr. Speaker, I ask the question once again to the Premier, because people out

in the area are asking me: Can you tell us, today, when exactly these activities

will begin, what are the completion dates for these projects, and, as the people

in the area have asked me, when can people expect to go to work in Argentia?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you again, as I answered the last question, that the hon. member

knows exactly as I do. He has had the same discussions. He does not need to ask

me a question in the House of Assembly. He has had access to the Voisey's Bay

Nickel Company officials. When he speaks to them, he pretends that he is on

their side, that he wants it to happen, he is glad to get the information, he is

working for the people of Argentia and Placentia, Mr. Speaker, and then he comes

in here and asks the question because his idol did ask him to ask a question,

the Leader of the Opposition. I guess he was disappointed to know today that his

idol is not in the building. He thought that he was your idol. It was a

startling revelation for him to find out today that this is not your idol right

here in front of you today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that in answering the

question, they are down there renovating and opening the office, they are making

all the plans to fence the property and they are doing all the plans, as he

knows, to put the warehouse in place and to spend $5 million in the area before

the end of March. He knows that to be a fact.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier and it concerns the use of food banks in this

Province. The Canadian Association of Food Banks reported, this year, that

Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest rate per capita of food bank usage in

the country. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 85 per cent of those people using food banks

are social assistance recipients. Mr. Speaker, the last time the social

assistance rates were raised was 7 per cent over four years while the CPI, the

Consumer Price Index, has gone up 29 per cent since 1990.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier commit to increasing social assistance rates in

this Province so that people can buy food, or is this government going to

continue to offload its responsibility to the volunteer sector that runs food

banks and rely on the charity model?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting, I guess, to look at one narrow part of

an issue in terms of tying food bank usage to a social assistance rate. Mr.

Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador, what the hon. Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi omits and leaves out in his question and his

preamble, is this:

Most of those people who are visiting food banks are families with children,

low-income earners and others, and there have been major changes in

Newfoundland. Most of them are not social service recipients. They are

low-income earners, the working poor as they are referred to. For those people,

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador - and I do believe he knows this -

that, in fact, that amount has increased by over 30 per cent in the last couple

of years, because it directs money to families with children so that they have a

greater capability today, a far greater capability today, Mr. Speaker, than they

have had in any of the last four or five years, to provide for themselves and

their families because of the thousands of dollars that go into those families,

above and beyond any social assistance rates that are paid.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Because it is directed at families with children whether

they are on social assistance or not, Mr. Speaker. We look forward to making

more of those positive changes in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the Premier needs to know is that his own government's survey last

summer, in consultation on social assistance, showed that a key message from

participants was that there was an inadequate amount of money to cover the cost

of basic needs such as food, shelter and clothing, and, in fact, parents with

school age children reported that there was not enough money for lunches,

extracurricular activities, fees and school supplies. So, Mr. Speaker, they are

clearly inadequate. The social assistance recipients know it.

What I want to know, Mr. Speaker: Is this Premier prepared to commit his

government, as a priority next year, to increase the social assistance rates so

that people on social assistance can live in dignity, Mr. Speaker, and with

respect, instead of having to go around looking for food in food banks and doing

without things that are basic necessities for their children?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me state again, that in the budget process we are going

through we deal with all of those issues and we will make those decisions in the

budget as we have done in past years.

With the representations that were made, Mr. Speaker, the same presenters did

acknowledge that they would be in a lot worse circumstance if it was not for

huge and significant increases in the child tax credits and the benefits that

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have targeted the initative and

actually have been lauded by the same people, and applauded as the government,

for targeting initiatives at families with children so that they can provide for

the very kinds of things that you just mentioned in your question and the

preamble. They have these expenses, we know it, and we know that there is a

further, as are all the provinces and territories in the country, and we are

certainly playing our part.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: We have reinvested every single cent back into the child

tax credit and benefits, Mr. Speaker, that have been made available to the

Province and we will make further moves and they will be discussed in the budget

in March month.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow, I will move, under Standing

Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., and the companion part to

that, Mr. Speaker, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to present the following Private Member's Motion.

WHEREAS the federal government is giving consideration to increasing its

spending on National Defense; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador is strategically located and has

historically played a significant role in National Defense; and

WHEREAS this Province is naturally positioned and suited to be the location

of certain defense facilities and training; and

WHEREAS the amount spent on National Defense in this Province is very low and

has been decreasing in recent years; and

WHEREAS people from this Province represent a significant proportion of

miliary personnel in Canada;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the federal government

to increase the current level of National Defense spending in this Province and

recognize the strategic role that we play in the defense of this country.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition to the House of Assembly and it 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 years 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 approximately three kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy Cove

to Bonavista.

Mr. Speaker, this is another in a series of petitions that has been presented

to me to bring forward to the House of Assembly. It is the people in Birchy

Cove, the upper-middle-lower Amherst Cove area, Kings Cove, Keels, Duntara, all

the way up Route 235 to Keels, who use this road on a regular basis to go and

access government offices, schools and places of work in Bonavista, it is a

situation where we have three kilometres of this particular main artery leading

into the town of Bonavista that is in a deplorable state, asking this government

if they would commit funding to complete Route 235 in that particular area.

Mr. Speaker, now I am getting calls from people who use this road on a

continual basis complaining about the snowclearing. The road is in such bad

condition that the snowplows there, in their efforts to try and clear the road,

are unable to remove the snow from that

section of road because of the shape and

the condition that the road is in. Because of that, they are experiencing very,

very unsafe driving conditions. When you consider school buses having to use

that particular road on a daily basis, Mr. Speaker, taking school children to

and from some of the communities that I just named into Bonavista, it makes this

concern very real.

Back a few years ago, this particular piece of road was identified by not

only the people in Birchy Cove and Newmans Cove but by people from the whole

area there, as their priority. While the roads that are leading into their

communities - and I am thinking of Upper Amherst Cove, for instance. Mr.

Speaker, the people came forward to a public meeting and they said: Here is our

priority, Mr. Minister. We would like whatever funding is being approved for

road repairs and upgrades in this particular area this year to be spent on Route

235 to deal with the main thoroughfare first and then we will deal with the

roads that go through our communities after. In spite of the pleas by people

living in those communities, the government of the day, this government, went

out and instead of paying attention to the main road, instead of paying

attention to the wishes of the people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a second to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Instead of listening to the pleas of the people there,

they went out and paved and upgraded a

section of road that was not even the

wishes of the people in the area.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the government pay attention to those petitions

and allow the funding in this year's capital works budget to upgrade and

completely finish this

section of roadway.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take the opportunity again today to present a petition on

behalf of the people of Conche. I presented petitions similar to this in the

past, and once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about - I

will read the prayer of the petition first of all.

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Legislative

Session convened:

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS the road linking Conche to Roddickton is in deplorable condition and

is in desperate need of upgrading and paving; and

WHEREAS the deplorable condition of the roads makes it a hazard for the large

volume of traffic using the road including the residents and transport trucks

and truck fish products out of Conche; and

WHEREAS the road conditions hinder tourism development in the area and with

the historical connection to the French Shore, roads need to be maintained so

they do not deter people from visiting the site; and

WHEREAS the twenty-six kilometres of dirt road have to be travelled daily by

its residents in order to access needed services including the hospital,

pharmacy, groceries, gas, et cetera., in Roddickton.

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,

and in particular the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to make

this road a top priority and begin upgrading immediately.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have here, I guess, the last of the signatures from the people

of Conche and surrounding area. There are 143 signatures on this one. I

presented a petition from Conche last week with, I suspect, the remainder of the

names of the people in Conche.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Conche asked me awhile ago about the road. They

said, when the election was on the go, when the by-election was on the go - and

I have referenced this before - there was a commitment made by the minister at

the time, there was a commitment made by the people who were going around

campaigning for the person who was running against me, Mr. Pilgrim, there was a

commitment made that the road was going to be done within two years. Here we are

now, practically two years have gone by, there hasn't been a start made on it

and the people of Conche said: What are we going to do? What are we going to

say? How do we get at these people?

They have made representation to the government, and nothing. They said, if

the election was on the go, sure, they would be around promising the road to us

again. I said, well, the only thing that you can do, if the minister is not

going to acknowledge, is send in a petition. At least we will be able to raise

it in the House of Assembly, raise it to the minister.

Two years in a row I have sent a letter to the minister with a list of

priorities for road work in the district. One of the roads was Conche, that I

put down on my list of priorities. There were others in The Straits, Croque and

other gravel roads that need to be upgraded.

This is a twenty-six kilometre road, Mr. Speaker, that runs through a

community that roughly about 300 people live in. There are substantial amounts

of fish trucked in and out of this community over the course of the year. It has

a long history with a connection to the French Shore. It is something where

there are great possibilities for tourism development in this area.

As I said the last time I presented a petition here, the French Shore

Historical Society, the French Shore celebrations in 2004, plan to have Conche

as part of its celebrations. Mr. Speaker, how do we ever expect to develop a

place like Conche -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: - to give the people a chance to move ahead in the tourism

industry when we have just a gravel road for people to travel on in order to get

there?

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, again, a petition on behalf of hundreds of residents

of Grand Falls-Windsor, Bishop's Falls and Botwood who have signed this

particular petition asking the government to provide coverage under the

Prescription Drug Program for MS and other diseases, who need high cost drugs.

Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Drug Prescription Program

currently only provides coverage for seniors under the Senior Citizens' Drug

Subsidy Program and for people on income support. These drugs are quite

expensive. All citizens in other Canadian provinces can receive assistance with

the cost of these drugs, using a co-payment or a sliding scale program, and

these drugs can significantly improve the quality of life for people with MS.

Mr. Speaker, the undersigned on this petition are asking the House of

Assembly to direct the government to implement a co-payment or a sliding scale

program to assist them with the purchase of these drugs.

Mr. Speaker, many people in this Province suffer from MS. I have presented

petitions during this session of the House, and for the last five or six

sessions, asking that government introduce such a system, because the only

people who are not covered in this Province are people who are working for a

living, trying to provide for their families, make ends meet on a day-to-day

basis, and they should not be subject to having to make a choice in providing

for their families or taking the medication that can improve their situation

with regard to the disease that they are afflicted with.

Mr. Speaker, as I said on many other occasions, this is not a disease that

they inflicted upon themselves by some actions that they took. They have no

control over inheriting this disease and now they must deal with the

consequences. It is not fair and it is not proper for this government to subject

them to having to ruin themselves financially, to spend any RRSPs they may have

saved, to spend any money they may have put aside for their children's

education, for their own retirement, to reduce themselves to income support

levels and then, after all of that is said and done, this government will help

out. So, it is not the fact that this government does not have the money; it is

the fact of what they require people to do to themselves and their families

before they will help.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage and I urge this government, in their next budget, to

make allowance to introduce a system of co-payment or a sliding scale program

similar to every other province in this country, and allow the people of this

Province the ability to take advantage of that program so they do not have to

ruin themselves and their families in order to get relief from a disease that

they suffer from.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Order 4. I move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House

not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, and, the companion Motion 5, that the House not

adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11,

that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, December 16, 2002.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

It is moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not

adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, December 16, 2002.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 19.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to debate

Bill 30,

An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

Order 19, Bill 30,

An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have just a few questions regarding perhaps some clarification and response

from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I wonder, for the purposes of

Committee, because obviously clause 1 was just referred to, where I am going

over a number of sections and asking a few questions with respect to the entire

piece of legislation, maybe at this point if I could have the scope and leeway

of the Chair to perhaps go from

section to section, that may make it a little

bit easier, with the Chair's consent.

CHAIR: Is that agreeable to both House Leaders?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This particular piece of legislation, at the outset I think it should be

stated, and I know it has been stated by our critic, the Member for Lewisporte,

that this is certainly a piece of welcomed legislation in that it deals with an

issue of great importance to those spouses who are obviously seeking support

from the other spouse, particularly as it relates to the needs of support for

the children of the marriage or the children of the relationship.

Mr. Chairman, essentially what this piece of legislation allows is, it now

allows a codification of this legislation. It repeals a piece of legislation

that was somewhat archaic in this jurisdiction and, as the Member for Lewisporte

indicated in second reading last week, it now brings us in line with other

jurisdictions across Canada to ensure that the reciprocity of these particular

court orders will be recognized and enforced with respect to one jurisdiction

and the other.

What is interesting to note is that it is not restricted or limited to just

Canadian provinces. There is a provision, as I understand from the Minister of

Justice in his introductory comments last week, that allows for foreign orders,

in other words, extra territorial orders outside the jurisdiction of this

country that indeed can be reciprocated in this Province again for the ultimate

benefit of our young people who will be the recipients, Mr. Chairman, of the

support being paid by one spouse to another for the support of these children.

However, I do have a few questions and maybe I would indulge upon the

Minister of Justice perhaps to make a few brief comments in response to some of

the points as found in Bill 30,

An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support

Orders.

I notice under

section 2, Mr. Chairman, that there is a definition of an

appropriate authority and there is a distinction between appropriate authority

and designated authority. I would perhaps ask the minister if he could share

some commentary with respect to the need for the distinction as it relates to

appropriate authority as opposed to designated authority. I know, by definition,

if we look at the definition found under

section 2.(a), appropriate authority is

with respect to the reciprocating jurisdiction and means the person or persons

in that jurisdiction who correspond to the designated authority.

So, my question is: Is it absolutely necessary that, in terms of perhaps only

leading to confusion in terms of the wording that is being used and the

definition that is being used, is it essential that we have two separate

definitions for what is ultimately the same thing, namely an appropriate

authority versus a designated authority? I would be interested, Mr. Chairman, in

hearing the feelings of the Minister of Justice in response to that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, the purpose is quite obvious and clear. The reason is, again, for

simplicity rather than having any confusion over what are designated

authorities. For example, each jurisdiction will have a designated authority

within its province. So, the question is: If you were dealing with a case that

was going to be transferred from here to Alberta, for example, you would be

transferring it from a designated authority of Newfoundland to a designated

authority of Alberta. So, to get away from that confusion where everybody has a

designated authority, how you are going to get around it is by saying, in your

own province you will be called the designated authority.

Now, where you send it to, you are sending it to the appropriate authority in

the other province. So, if it is coming from here, yes, you are sending it to a

designated authority in Alberta, but for the purpose of doing the paperwork,

rather than get confused between two designated authorities, you call the

province where it comes from the designated authority and the reciprocating

jurisdiction to where it is going, you call it the appropriate authority.

If, in fact, you look at

section 2.(a), it specifies that, "appropriate

authority' when used in reference to a reciprocating jurisdiction...", so

you only ever get an appropriate authority when you are talking about in the

other reciprocating jurisdictions. In our own Province it will be called the

designated authority, which, in our case, would be the Support Enforcement

Agency which operates out of Corner Brook.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, I understand what the minister is saying, but, because the legislation

refers to two different

definitions, isn't it not possible that in this

jurisdiction we would refer to the Support Enforcement Agency as a designated

authority, correct? Then, the authority in Alberta, for example, if that is the

province we are dealing with, would be the appropriate authority, but because it

is legislation that deals with reciprocal acts, you would have the situation

then, assuming that this thinking is even carried out in Alberta, that you would

have the Alberta jurisdiction referring to Newfoundland as the appropriate

authority and their own jurisdiction being referred to locally as a designated

authority. So we have a reciprocal arrangement whereby two different authorities

and two different jurisdictional uses are using, in fact, two separate titles.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: That is exactly what happens, Mr. Chair, and that is the

purpose. The jurisdiction we are in, the request arises and originates, will, in

all cases, in all jurisdictions, be called the designated authority. The

jurisdiction to where it goes will be called the appropriate authority, and that

is to avoid the confusion. This is not a Newfoundland act. This was a model that

was designed this way by all Provinces of Canada and the Territories who agreed

upon these designations to get rid of any confusion, so that if you are in your

own province, you deal with a designated authority. Anybody who makes an

application here, who is the designated authority in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador? Our Support Enforcement Agency. Where does it go

after you file your paperwork with your designated authority? You send it to the

authorized authority in whatever jurisdiction you want your order and your

paperwork to go to. No matter where you start in Canada, you always start from

the same premise. If you are in Nova Scotia, you file your paperwork with the

designated authority in Nova Scotia. They take it, and where do they send it? If

it is in B.C., they send it to whatever the Province of British Columbia has

authorized to be their appropriate authority.

I do not see any confusion. In fact, I think it makes it quite simplistic and

clear.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, under the same Definition section, we see

the definition of a provisional order meaning "(

i) a support order of a

court that has no force or effect until confirmed by a court in a reciprocating

jurisdiction, or (ii) a similar order made in a reciprocating jurisdiction and

received for confirmation in the province."

Obviously, when we are talking about a provisional order, or you will notice

in subsection (

h) a provisional order of variation, we are talking essentially

about a support order, although provisional in nature because it has not been

confirmed.

Having said those few words, I would like to go to subsection 2.(

k) which

defines a support order, meaning "...a court order or an order made by an

administrative body requiring the payment of support and includes the provisions

of a written agreement requiring the payment of support where those provisions

are enforceable in the jurisdiction in which the agreement was made as if they

were contained in an order of a court of that jurisdiction...".

My first question, I guess, for the minister is the reference that is found

in subsection 2.(

k) where it states, an order made by an administrative body as

opposed to a court order. I wonder if the minister could perhaps elaborate on

that point for the purposes of this act in terms of an example that the public

would understand, I guess, as an alternative to a court order.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the intention here is to differentiate

between what is an existing order, for example, or what is a variation of an

existing order. That is why, for example, the provisional one is exactly that;

it is provisional. It is something that has varied, as they used the word their

in subsection 2.(h)(i). They talk about an order of a court that varies a

support order; for example, it is something that varies something that already

exists, but it is a similar order made in another jurisdiction; for example, a

variation of an existing order in another jurisdiction, but it is still called a

provisional no matter where it happens. It is a variation of an existing order,

but in all cases where it is a variation of an existing order it is called

provisional as opposed to item 2.(

k) which is a support order that has been

made, it is not provisional. It is already existing. It has been made by a

Supreme Court, for example, in the course of a divorce hearing where they dealt

with support.

Regarding the issue of administrative body, the distinction is being made

here in subsection 2.(k). It says, "...means a court order or an order made

by an administrative body...". The reason they are distinguishing it is

because it is not always a court in all jurisdictions that makes support orders.

There are, in some jurisdictions, administrative bodies that take it out of the

hands of the court and allow them to make a support order. For example, even

here in Newfoundland we can have a support order that is made by a Supreme Court

Trial Division, we can have a court order that is made by a provincial court,

and in some jurisdictions they even have other agencies of their governments

that deal with support for the very purpose that they do not get bogged down in

long drawn-out court proceedings when they are trying to deal with the immediate

needs of a support order. To give an example here in the Province where this

would fit as well: We are currently doing a pilot project through the Support

Enforcement Agency in Corner Brook called the Recalculation Model. Albeit, we

have an existing order made, say, by our Supreme Court Trial Division in the

course of a divorce hearing and that order is registered with our support

agency.

Right now, the person who was the recipient of those funds doesn't have to

go back to court to make a request for more monies under the support order.

Automatically, at the end of the year now in Corner Brook, all support orders

get recalculated, so that, if Mrs. Jones, for example, was receiving $200 a

month from her spouse who is living in Alberta we now have authority, in Corner

Brook, that they recalculate, they send out a notice to Mr. Jones and say: Give

us your income tax returns for the last year. Mr. Jones is required by law to

bring that in. The Support Enforcement Agency looks at the financial information

and decides whether Mr. Jones should, in accordance with the federally

established guidelines, be paying more. If he should, based on that information

that he submitted, be paying more, the Support Enforcement Agency makes the

calculation and sends Mr. Jones back a notice saying: Here is your new

recalculation.

That is an example where someone other than a court, i.e. an administrative

agency, is making an order. They exist in some other places in Canada, but not

in the Recalculation Model. Agencies in other parts of Canada actually do make

orders rather than just a court. It is an arm of the court or an agency of the

government.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am wondering, though, where we have a definition of a support order and

where the act certainly contemplates another type of body dealing with support

issues and rendering a decision - and that is, I guess, what is referred to

through other administrative bodies - is it fair to say what the minister is

also contemplating here, that issues of support obviously can be dealt with by

way of a separation agreement or, indeed, a mediation agreement, simply agreed

upon and mediated with the social arm of the Unified Family Court, for example.

Then we have, presumably, an agreement between two spouses as it relates to

support issues?

My question then: Is that mediated agreement, or what is mutually agreed upon

between both spouses and found in a separation agreement, can the basis of that

agreed upon document be an enforceable document for the purposes of this

particular section, not only this section, indeed for the whole act? Is that

something that is contemplated?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is nothing different here regarding

the

definitions of these various types of orders. We have support orders now,

currently. We have provisional support order now, currently. If you look item

(j), for example, it talks about support variation orders again. The purpose of

putting the three

definitions up front in everybody's piece of legislation is

that we are all dealing from the same level when we talk about what is what. For

example, if you are going to make an application under this act to send off your

documentation to another jurisdiction for enforcement, what do we have? Do we

have a court order, do we have a varied court order, do we have a provisional

order, do we have a straight support order or do we have a support variation

order? So what it does is, they designate an authority in each jurisdiction now

by using these

definitions and all of us across Canada and in the Territories

will use the same definition base. There will not be any confusion any more

about what we are trying to identify.

When we file our documentation here and our designated authority ships it off

to B.C., for example, that documentation will state what it is: this is a

support variation order that is coming at you. The Court in B.C., immediately,

when they read the documentation, says: What is a support variation order? They

go to the definition section, which is the same as we have because this is a

model piece of legislation across the country and everybody is dealing with the

same

definitions and in the same ballpark.

How they arise - you are quite right - they come from different sources. You

can have, for example, the recalculation model I referred to, to get it to be in

order stage. You can have a provincial court make a support order, a Supreme

Court Trial Division Trial Division make a support order. Parties can agree in a

separation agreement. A will pay B $200 a month and the support enforcement

agency will agree to take that and enforce it, because the parties agreed, in

their separation agreement, that it would be filed with the Support Enforcement

Agency, and that happens today.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

From the minister's comments, though, is the minister suggesting that it is

not necessary that an order be filed with the court? For example, if there is an

agreement between the parties, as a result of a mediated agreement with the

assistance of the social arm of the court, or simply an agreement whereby both

spouses, by virtue of a separation agreement, agree as to what the quantum of

support should be, is the minister suggesting that that alone will be sufficient

to have enforced in other jurisdictions? Or, is it still necessary to have that

agreed upon document supported by - if I could use that word - a court order to

allow enforcement in other jurisdictions?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, there has to be some recognized acceptance by

somebody, whether it be an administrative body or a court, that the parties have

entered into this legitimate agreement, even in a case of separation agreements.

You may agree in a separation agreement to pay your support and you both may

willingly say in your separation agreement that we will file it with support

enforcement, but everybody still does, in fact, file it with the court. A copy

of it still gets filed with the court. It does not stipulate here whether it

comes from mitigation counsel or remediation, remedial counsel or whatever, but

any document - the intention here is that anybody who agrees to pay support

willingly and signs a document, whether it be through a court process, a

separation process or whatever accepted mediation process, that you file your

documents obviously then with the court. My understanding is that even in

mediation, if you agree to support, you file it with the court. The court then

usually ends up with a record of what you have agreed to. That is the whole

process, that you did not use the court process to arrive at your decision, you

stepped outside the courtroom through mediation, resolved what your differences

were, came to your agreements with the help of mediation, but the court still

finds out what was mediated.

In that case, similar to a separation agreement, the court gets notified of

what you have agreed to and also the Support Enforcement Agency will get

notified. Regardless of how it comes about, the order, if it is a legitimate

order, through mediation, separation or a court order, if it is accepted here in

our jurisdiction, it will be accepted in the reciprocating jurisdiction.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let's just expand upon this for a moment, if we may. If, in fact, a

document is filed with the court - let's say it is a mediated agreement - and

that is the base document that is used for enforcement purposes, in the absence

of a court order that simply, perhaps, may only recognize the existence of a

mediated agreement, or simply confirms the provisions of a mediated agreement in

the absence of a supporting court order, would it then not be difficult to apply

for a variation of an order when, in fact, there is no court order that has been

filed with the court, notwithstanding the fact that we do have, perhaps, a

separation agreement or a mediated document simply agreed to by both parties?

My question, again, for the purpose of this definition, and to ensure that

claimants in this Province who may be seeking support from individuals in other

jurisdictions - wouldn't it be absolutely necessary to have an order filed,

although only a supporting document on an agreed upon arrangement, simply to

allow for: (

a) the enforcement, because of the wording that is used in this act;

and, perhaps, more importantly, to deal with the variation application, because

variation states specifically, it is a variation of a court order?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, we have stepped now from the realm of the

definition

section into other parts of the act, but we cannot look at one in

isolation of the other. For example,

Part I, in answer to your question,

hopefully, deals with the issue of Claims Where An Order Does Not Exist. So,

there is a whole bunch. In fact, there are five or six pages in here as to what

happens and what the process is going to be if an order does not exist.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, but there is also a provision in the act which deals

with the protocol and the process to be used if you do not have a support order.

There are two circumstances under this act: if you do or if you do not.

Part I

deals with where you do not.

Mr. Chairman, if it is helpful at all, I do not mind - I do not know if this

is the right forum to do it in but, obviously, we have other than just

definition sections here. Understanding the full scope of the act, it might be

beneficial if myself and the Justice critic spoke, if he wished, to have a

conversation and then come back and review these matters in more detail, if that

is what he would prefer.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, under

section 3, "The minister may

designate a court or courts in the province for the purpose of proceedings under

this Act," is the minister contemplating courts other than what, in fact,

are the courts that deal with support issues? Are there, in fact, changes being

envisaged at this present time, which is why this particular

section is found

under

section 3?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: The only, shall be say, possibility is intended for other

jurisdictions, not our Province. We have three levels of court now that deal

with support orders: Provincial Court, Supreme Court Trial Division and, in the

St. John's area, we have the Unified Family Court that deal with these types

of issues. There is consideration - and I am sure most people saw the

announcement just last week by Minister Cauchon where they are going to actually

create forty-six more Unified Family Courts across the country. So, they knew

that was coming in terms of Unified Family Courts. It is put in here so that as

those courts get rolled out in the other jurisdictions, they will designate

their new Unified Family Courts to be support-making bodies, as well, but here

in the Province absolutely not. We have three and the intention is to keep the

three levels of courts we have: Provincial, Unified and Supreme Court Trial

Division.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: On the issue of jurisdiction, Mr. Chairman, there is an

appeal provision that is found in

section - if I can find it. I am looking for

the appeal section. Anyway, it is there towards the end under appeal issues. I

cannot find the

section right now.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Section 37.

MR. OTTENHEIMER:

Section 37. Yes, thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I notice there is reference here that the court of reference

for appeal issues will be the Court of Appeal. Am I reading that correct, Mr.

Minister?

For example,

section 37.(1) states, "A party to a proceeding under this

Act or the designated authority may appeal to the Court of Appeal a ruling,

decision or order of the court under this Act."

I am just wondering - and again I am seeking clarification from the Minister

of Justice - if, in fact, we have Provincial Courts dealing with issues of

support, and obviously Provincial Courts should because they are accessible

courts in many parts of the Province where our Supreme Court and Unified Family

courts do not exist, I am just wondering if the Provincial Courts of this

Province deal with these issues, how is it that the next appeal court is the

Court of Appeal as opposed to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court, which is

a court that is much more accessible to all of the people of the Province simply

by virtue of geography?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of that again is for the purpose

of uniformity, because we had different levels of court in different

jurisdictions that make the court orders. We do not know, for example, it may

have been a case in Newfoundland where a Provincial Court made the original

support order; an appeal, as you suggest, would logically then go to the Trial

Division of the Supreme Court before it would go to our Court of Appeal.

You are also going to have circumstances where the orders might have been

made originally in the Supreme Court in the matter of a divorce, in which case

the automatic next level of appeal would be your Court of Appeal. To avoid any

confusion, and to avoid having different levels coming from different places

across the country, all provinces have agreed that, rather than get into a

time-consuming appeal process, if there are any appeals from any orders made

under this jurisdiction, every province will use their Court of Appeals to

settle it once and for all, even if there might have been normally an

intermediary step in here. If you, for example, want to appeal Provincial Court,

it would mean you would have to go to a Trial Division of the Supreme Court,

then you would have to go to a Court of Appeal, all of which, in the context of

what we are dealing with here, which is support legislation, is not only

expensive, is not only time-consuming, it delays what the intention of the

legislation is, which is to resolve it quickly. So the Province has said: Let's

get rid of these bi-levels or tri-levels of appeal and let everybody agree that

we will go immediately, if there is an appeal here, to our Court of Appeal and

end it once and for all in each Province.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have some issue, though, with the comment made by the minister in terms of

it being time-consuming and perhaps the Court of Appeal being a court that is

more accessible. It seems to me, and although this may contradict perhaps what

is found in other similar legislation in other provinces, it just seems to me,

in looking at our own Province, that clearly the Trial Division of the Supreme

Court of Newfoundland would be a court that is certainly more accessible, again

in terms of geography. We have seven such courts throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador. We have only one Court of Appeal here in St. John's. When the

minister talks of time and cost, it seems to me that, simply by virtue of

geography alone, the Trial Division would be a court that would lend itself more

raise the issue once again in response to the issue having been dealt with at a

provincial court level.

Again, I have some difficulty understanding why the Court of Appeal itself is

the designated appeal court when we are dealing - I understand it would have to

be for Trial Division or Unified Family Court determinations, but for Provincial

Court determinations why the Trial Division is not identified as the appropriate

appeal court seems somewhat puzzling.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Again, Mr. Chairman, there is no puzzle to it. Everyone has

decided, there is only one Court of Appeal in any province in Canada. If you

live in Newfoundland and you are out in Port aux Basques and you ran into this

problem, you would have to go to St. John's for an appeal. If you live in

Northern British Columbia and you run into this problem, you have to go to

Victoria.

The geography argument, that is part of the rationale here, that everybody

has difficulty with geography throughout the country when it comes to

consideration is who, in any jurisdiction that we are going to be dealing with,

has the ultimate authority to make a decision on the order, and that is the

Court of Appeal of any jurisdiction.

It ties in as well, not only with Canada, it ties in with the foreign

jurisdictions. For example, if you end up using this order to go after somebody

in Massachusetts on a support order and you have to go through the levels of

appeal, the support will not be the issue because there will be no kids small

enough to require the support by the time you get through the multi-tiers and

levels of support and appeals in the United States, between your state courts

and your federal courts and your supreme courts. So, the idea is, in any

jurisdiction, if it is Massachusetts you go to the Supreme Court of Appeal in

Massachusetts who would be dealing with family issues. In Canada, the same thing

in any jurisdiction.

That is one of the problems we had before, the complexities, and where do you

go and what courts were you involved with for months and sometimes years? That

is why they chose to go to the highest level of authority in any jurisdiction.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Despite the efforts of the hon. minister, I am not convinced on this point,

Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that the very comments that are being made and the

very justification that the minister is making only supports the points that I

think we are making, that the Trial Division would be an accessible court and

would be a court that would much more readily deal with the issues of appeal;

but it seems to be, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is determined to abide by

what apparently is found in, I guess, all other legislation in Canada which, I

would like to say at the outset, does not necessarily make it perfect

legislation, Mr. Chairman. If there are changes perhaps that ought to be

considered in our own jurisdiction for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, we ought to seriously consider that.

Mr. Chairman, under

section 12, it is an interesting

section and it deals

with the whole issue of parentage. It states, under 12.(1), "Where a child's

parentage is in issue and has not previously been determined, the court may

decide that issue." Of course, it does become necessary in disputed cases

where the issue of child support is being raised and the issue of parentage is

often raised, it is an issue that a court will have to deal with in order to

deal effectively with the issue of child support. The wording of may, however -

I do wish to question the minister with respect to

section 12.(1), because it

states, "Where a child's parentage is in issue..." so, obviously in

99 per cent of the cases it is not an issue, but if it becomes an issue it

states that, "...the court may decide that issue."

I am just wondering if the minister would comment on the wording of that

section because if, in fact, the issue of parentage is an issue, how does the

court deal with a determination of child support if, in fact, the issue of

parentage has not been determined? Therefore my question is: Ought there not be

an obligation on the court to deal with the issue of parentage in cases where

either it is not resolved or has not been determined, and it is then up to a

court, on the basis of evidence, to make a determination, wouldn't it be more

appropriate for a court to be put in the situation that it must? Therefore

simply changing the word from may to shall. Obviously if parentage is an issue,

it is questioned by one of the two spouses or one of the two partners, why is a

court left open to perhaps deal with it as opposed to having the obligation to

deal with it in order to conclude the issue of child support?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Again, Mr. Chairman, we cannot lose sight of the intention

of this piece of legislation. It is to simplify the process of someone having a

support order made.

Section 12 is permissive by using may for that very reason.

The court may want to expedite things and get the support order made and does

not want to get into the technical DNA type orders for testing to prove

parentage. The court may feel warranted, based upon the evidence that it has

before it, that it has sufficient evidence to make an order now without making a

definitive decision on the parentage. But in

section 12.(2), it is made quite

clear, that order is not cast in stone because it says, "A determination of

parentage under this

section has effect only for the purpose of support

proceedings under this Act." Again, it is done for the purpose of

expediting what we are trying to do here, which is get support matters dealt

with in a timely fashion, but if parentage is a legitimate concern, the person

who has been ordered to pay support still has a right to contest this at any

step of the way but they are not putting the onus upon the court who is involved

in this reciprocal enforcement legislation of getting into the nitty-gritty

detail of proving someone's parentage. The purpose of this legislation is to

expedite support orders and getting payments for kids, not slowing it down.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand the argument to expedite an issue, however, certainly it seems

to me, Mr. Chairman, that one has to question how an issue of support can be

effectively dealt with when one of the parties to the action is seriously

questioning the parentage of the child. We can expedite proceedings all we want;

however, if decisions are being made in the absence of absolute evidence and

absolute proof which confirms parentage that would then allow the court to

proceed with a support order, it seems to me that it could be somewhat

counterproductive because what ultimately can happen is that there is a

provisional order made, the court has made a determination which is found to be

perhaps incorrect or subject to reversal upon appeal, only to find out that we

have an unusual situation where support payments are made only to be found that

the recipient of that order must reimburse the payer simply because the issue of

parentage has yet to be determined. The wording Mr. Chairman, is somewhat

unusual. However, let's move on and deal with a few more other sections.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to go to

section 33 which deals with the

issue of support order. It states in clause 33(1) "On the conclusion of a

hearing, the court may, in respect of a party or a child or both, (

a) make a

support variation order; (

b) make an interim support variation order and adjourn

the hearing to a specified date; (

c) adjourn the hearing to a specified date

without making an interim support variation order; or (

d) refuse to make a

support variation order." But, under subsection 33.(2) it states: "The

court may make a support variation order that is retroactive."

I guess my question, seeking clarification from the minister, is this: When

subsection 33(2) states that a support order is retroactive, is it retroactive

from either (

a) when the application has been made by the claimant or (

b) is it

retroactive when an application has been heard in court but not determined by a

court - in terms it can be retroactive to when the issue came up in court - or

is it retroactive to when the application was first made? Or, for that matter,

is it retroactive to when there was an obligation under the agreed upon document

and just was not, perhaps, brought forward by the claimant?

This issue of retroactivity, I know it is an interesting issue, Mr. Chairman,

even in dealing with support issues today, not even talking about reciprocal

orders but just ordinary support applications. Often, you know, a spouse will

say in his or her application: Is it possible for me to get retroactive

payments? Perhaps a father has not paid for twelve months but after a

twelve-month period the mother then takes out proceedings in Unified Family

Court or Provincial Court to seek, obviously, the support payments, either to

vary them or to make sure that the order is enforced. Often the issue of

retroactivity is raised. Is the claimant/spouse penalized for twelve months

because he or she did not take out the application until twelve months later?

Therefore, are payments then retroactive to that, or are they only retroactive

to when the application is brought forward? I wonder if the minister could make

some comments with respect to the concept of retroactivity?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

It is my understanding that there are no limits, on the judges making the

order, as to when the support would have started. If he feels, based upon the

evidence that he hears, for example, that it should have been from the day the

parties separated, that this person should have been paying support, is within

his or her parameters to do that. If he feels that there was fault on the part

of the person who was looking for support, for example, in the sense that they

waited for six months before they came looking for anything, it is up to him

then if he says: Okay, your support shall start as of this date because you

waited six months before you did anything. If he files the application on

January 1 and does not get into court until June 1, it is up to the judge to

say: Based upon these facts, you filed your papers back in January, why should I

deny you from January to June because we did not get around to hearing it until

June.

Retroactivity is there for that very reason, to allow judges to use their

common sense, to look at all the facts as to who is seeking support, when did

they come seeking it, and when is the best and most appropriate time that they

should be entitled to this. We leave that to our judges. I think that is the

right party to leave it to because they hear all the facts.

There is all kinds of provisions throughout this piece of legislation, that

at any point in the process that a judge is not satisfied that he has all of the

facts, he can halt the proceedings and go back and request that the parties

provide the information that he needs. I suggest that we do not have too many

circumstances in this country where judges make support orders without having

what they feel is all of the necessary information. Again, this piece of

legislation is here to help those seeking the support, not the deadbeat dads who

have run away. The courts are not into protecting or doing everything possible

to stretch out the period of time that the deadbeat dads may have for not paying

their support.

The purpose of this legislation is, when we get you in a courtroom, when we

get you in a position where we can put an order on you to pay up, we will look

at all of the facts, we will decide as judges what is reasonable. If it means

that is has to be retroactive because we could not catch you before now or

whatever, we will make the order. That is the intention here, to get the support

and get it from when the judge feels is the appropriate period of time, and do

not allow people, intentionally, deliberately, to use pieces of legislation to

stymie what is the good intentions of it, i.e. recover support for people who

need it.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chair, I know my colleague from Lewisporte has a few

points on appeals, so I will leave that particular point for him now in a few

moments.

Under

section 38, under General Matters it states, "The minister may

appoint one or more persons to act as the designated authority in the province

for the purpose of this Act." In keeping with the definition of designated

authority, and I guess the explanation in part that was given by the minister a

little while ago,

section 38 certainly contemplates, perhaps, the opportunity

being given to the appointment of one or more persons, perhaps other than the

designated authority now, which is the Support Enforcement authority which is

housed in the City of Corner Brook.

I guess what I am saying, Minister, is, is it possible that either a separate

agency would be established to deal with reciprocal orders as envisaged under

this legislation, or is it more in keeping with the agency that we have now in

place to ensure for the purposes of cost perhaps, and ensuring that all these

issues remain under one roof? Is the thinking of the department that this act

will be dealt with and continue to be dealt with under the existing Support

Enforcement Agency, or is there thought being given to the establishment of a

separate agency to deal with enforcement of this legislation?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, the only thought and intention pursuant to

Section 38 is to have one designated authority, i.e. the Support Enforcement

Agency which currently exists in Corner Brook.

I would point out, however, that under

section 38, subsection (2), "A

person appointed under subsection (1) may, in writing, delegate a power or duty

under this Act to another person or persons." So we fully anticipate that

whoever is the head of the Support Enforcement Agency at Corner Brook will

indeed appoint people in other parts of the Province, for example, in Goose Bay

where there is a Supreme Court, or in St. John's where there is a Unified

Family Court, may well appoint somebody to help him carry out and ensure the

free flow and the proper movement of the documentation under this act. There is

not any intention to create more bureaucracy. The intent here is to use what we

already have.

In fact, the Support Enforcement Agency and the people who work at it here in

Newfoundland are 100 per cent behind this legislation because, as you are aware

from various reports that have been filed in this House, one of the big

difficulties with our Support Enforcement Agency is they try their darndest to

collect these monies on behalf of the claimants who come to them but they are

stymied quite often. All that is happening is the accounts receivable to these

claimants are getting higher and higher every year on the books of Support

Enforcement. So, they see this as a very useful tool to help them do their jobs.

That is our only intent is one agency and that is the one in Corner Brook

unless they need someone to help them to do the administration to make it easier

for the people who want to use this act in other parts of the Province.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with the minister in his response and I agree with his comments

totally, because it would seem to me that, obviously, issues of support have to

be dealt with in one location and have to be administered, I guess, from a group

of individuals who work together, have developed some degree of expertise and

are prepared to deal with this; notwithstanding, again, very often we do hear

complaints, I suppose, from individuals who find that the procedure is somewhat

time consuming and somewhat frustrating, and, of course, the whole issue of

child support is a very contentious issue.

On that note, I know that, in dealing with the Support Enforcement Agency

here in our own Province, we do have a very dedicated staff who, certainly,

works its best and its hardest to meet the demands of the public. However, it

would seem to me, though, Mr. Chair, that there ought to be, I guess, a form of

monitoring put in place, and the minister and his officials ought to ensure

that, to protect, I guess, the interests of the public and to ensure that the

public is being serviced as well as it can be. There should be a monitoring

mechanism put in place to ensure that what is being done is effective and it is

the most effective way to deal with the needs of the people of this Province who

are dealing with very sensitive issues of child support.

We are dealing, of course, with parents and claimants who are frustrated,

perhaps, largely from the very type of issue that this legislation contemplates,

dealing with parents who live outside the jurisdiction, perhaps living in Fort

McMurray, Alberta, or living in Toronto, Ontario or living in Edmonton, Alberta.

They abdicate their responsibility for child support and it causes and leads

only to frustration on behalf of those claimants who live here in the Province

and who seek redress, not only from the courts, but, ultimately, as well, from

the Support Enforcement Agency.

Mr. Chairman, there is an intriguing

section that I would like to refer to

the minister. It is under

section 46 and it talks about other remedies that may

be available. It states that, "This Act does not impair another remedy

available to a person, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a province or

territory of Canada, a jurisdiction outside Canada or a political subdivision or

official agency of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, of a province or

territory of Canada or of a jurisdiction outside Canada."

I would be interested in hearing the minister's comments to this particular

section, when it states that the act does not impair another remedy available to

a person. I would be interested in hearing from the minister what he envisages

other remedies to be that would, indeed, be outside the scope of this

legislation and outside the purview of what is intended under this act.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chair, the intent of this legislation is to, as I say,

expedite, hopefully, the recovery time that someone has to wait to get their

support. If a party feels at any time that they have another remedy, if they

feel they want to go to the other jurisdiction to sue, if they feel they want to

hire their own lawyer, if they feel that going the route alone themselves is

more beneficial to them than what this legislation does, that is their

prerogative. It is not to insist that you must do this at all cost, because

there may well be people in the system who do not want to use this system. They

do not want the bureaucracy. Maybe they feel they want to follow their own

route. All this is saying is, any other remedy you have, do not think that we

are going to impair your remedies here. This is another tool that we think will

be of assistance to you, if you want to use it, and I am sure that many people

will use this route. Because it simplifies things, they will use it. It is not

to take away from any rights that a person might have.

I notice that person is defined here both ways. Person might not be taken to

be the person who is necessarily using this system to expedite it. Maybe the

person whom the money is being sought from may feel they have a remedy too. For

example, in the case of the parentage, maybe the person whom support is being

sought from feels that I am not the father of that child, in which case any

remedy they have as well can be utilized. So, you are not taking away rights. We

are here to create a tool to help people enforce their rights and expedite it.

The bottom line here, that we cannot lose sight of - we can get caught up

sometimes in intricacies and what ifs - we cannot lose sight of the fact that

the purpose of this legislation is to expedite things, to simplify things, and

to make it useable easily by the vast majority of people who need it. We are

sure and certain, the same as any law that we have ever passed here, that if

people want to they will find loopholes with it to try to beat the system again.

We are sure that is going to happen in the courts across this country in the

next number of years. What we have tried to do here is to make it a system that

is so simple that hopefully they will not be able to find any of those loopholes

and that it will benefit the people it is intended to benefit.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am going to reserve my further comments, Mr. Chairman, until afterwards. I

know my colleague from Lewisporte has a couple of points as it relates to the

Court of Appeal. I will now defer to my colleague.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have no interest in delaying, for any great amount of time, the passage of

this piece of legislation. I spoke on it in second reading last week, and

generally I indicated that we were supportive of the legislation as progressive,

good legislation, but I could not help but wonder, as I listened to the minister

explain to my colleague the rationale of all jurisdictions across Canada

identifying their Court of Appeal as the appropriate body to appeal a decision

to. The justification for that kind of escapes me, and for this reason: What

about if there are hundreds of those orders appealed and they end up, of all

places, in our Court of Appeal down on Duckworth Street? How soon are they going

to get heard?

The Court of Appeal - I cannot speak for any other jurisdiction, but - our

Court of Appeal seems to me to be relatively limited in the amount of work that

it can do in a month or six months or whatever. If there were to be - and I do

not know whether there will be or not, only time will tell, but was any thought

given to the fact that many hundreds of people may not like the order that comes

down from the appropriate court, whether it is a Provincial Court or not, and

feel that they want to appeal it, and they have a right under the legislation to

appeal it.

If hundreds of those people end up with a case before the Court of Appeal

down here, it is not going to have the effect, I do not think, I say to the

minister, of being expeditious. It is not going to have the effect that the

minister wants it to have, because it is my view that the Court of Appeal is

certainly limited in the amount of new work that it can take on, and if hundreds

of people, maybe thousands of people, would be dissatisfied with an order and

they are going to exercise their legal right to appeal it, what is going to

happen when it hits the fan down in the Court of Appeal?

MADAM CHAIR (M. Hodder): The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I notice, under

section 3, it talks about, the Province can designate a court

that they want to deal with this act. I guess it is half a dozen of one and six

of the other. We say, if we designate a Provincial Court only to deal with these

matters and then if somebody wants to appeal we end up in our Court of Appeal,

bypassing our Trial Division, we can designate, if you wish, the Trial Division

of the Supreme Court as the court for this act, if we want, and then the Court

of Appeal has the appeal matter mechanism which would then be automatic. There

is no bi-level. We would have to go to our Court of Appeal if that happened

anyway, if we designate our Trial Division as the court that has to administer

this act.

Most jurisdictions feel that by designating both your Provincial and your

Supreme Courts and your Unified Family Courts as courts that can deal with this

it, so the person in St. Anthony, for example, does not have to travel to Corner

Brook to go to a Trial Division to get this thing done for them, if they want to

use that court. So, I guess it is a matter of where you start. You can start at

the Trial Division if you want, so that your Court of Appeal is your automatic

level that you have to go to next. We feel it is better to give every court that

deals with family law matters the right to deal with these matters now because

In terms of numbers, we do not know. I would suspect that most of the appeals

that are going to come from this are going to be those persons who, first and

foremost, had to be tracked down because they abdicated their responsibility. So

there is a portion of people who are supposed to pay their support but do not.

They have left this jurisdiction and ran off to wherever, for whatever reason.

The purpose of this act is to get at those people.

In comparison to all the people who pay support, thank God, most people pay

their support obligations. We are dealing with a number who do not do it, so we

have had to track them down, shall we say, if we get to this point to use this

legislation, and some judge - it is usually not going to be, I would suggest,

the applicant who wants to appeal, because that is the intention here. We know

the guidelines, and 99 per cent of the time the person seeking support knows

what they are going to get because they know how many children they have. They

know their financial circumstance. They have applied the guidelines, and they

know they are entitled to x number of dollars a month. It is going to be that 1

per cent who are upset because some judge in some reciprocating jurisdiction

made an order against him.

So, I think in terms of numbers, we are dealing with a very small number of

people who are going to be appealing. Quite frankly, if we are dealing with 1

per cent of the non-paying deadbeat dad - I use that expression of the world -

who want to appeal, and if that 1 per cent is not satisfied because some judge,

using established guidelines, using established documentation that has been

provided to him by a claimant, decides that someone has to pay x amount of

dollars in accordance with the legally established guidelines is upset and has

to appeal, and it necessitates that he has to go to a Court of Appeal to do it,

I am not too upset about that. Yes, he ought to have his rights or her rights to

justice, no question about it, but I would suggest it is a very small number -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: We never know, I guess, when we do any piece of legislation,

I say to the hon. member, what the ultimate impacts of it might be. We do things

hopefully in good faith. In this case, ten jurisdictions - at least in this

country - thirteen, counting the Territories, have agreed that this is good

model legislation to start with. We will iron out some of the wrinkles as we go.

I would make a comment as well, in regard to our Court of Appeal, that if I

had to appeal a matter such as this today, given what I understand to be the

workloads in any court in this Province, I would take my chances going to the

Court of Appeal, because the Provincial Courts - we have twenty-four courts in

the Province, judges, and they do 95 per cent of all cases that are dealt with

in this Province, done in Provincial Court. The other 5 per cent finds its way

into the Supreme Court Trial Division or the Unified Family Court, who are

extremely busy. You cannot get a date in Unified Family Court unless you are

four or five months out,

whereas in the Court of Appeal, probably for the first

time in the last five years, they are not that busy in comparison to those other

levels of court. In fact, I believe, the last docket that they called, at least

in September month when they called the docket, I think there were actually four

matters called in September.

If we get the onslaught, I agree, we will have to do something about the

number of judges we have made available, but I think the system is good. I think

we are going to be dealing with small numbers. If it does not work, obviously,

that is the purpose of Legislatures, to monitor these things so that if it does

not work and the system is not working, this is about unclogging the system and

making the system work to expedite support orders. This is not about trying to

clog up our court system, trample people's rights, or keep people from getting

their support orders in a timely fashion.

Thank you.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just, I guess, to summarize and perhaps repeat the point that was made by my

colleague from Lewisporte, and perhaps it in some way may be an effective way to

deal with this, that is, again to use the example - the hon. minister used St.

Anthony, but let's use Marystown where we have a Provincial Court and we have

a Supreme Court Trial Division in Grand Bank. Using that geographical example in

the Province, what the minister is suggesting is that if a party wishes to

appeal a decision under this act, that the person who lives in Fortune, or in

St. Lawrence, or in Lamaline, who wants to appeal the decision must now go the

Court of Appeal in St. John's as opposed to the Trial Division in Grand Bank.

Therefore, perhaps what may be an appropriate way around this is under

Section

37 where it states, for example, to "...appeal to the Court of

Appeal." Maybe we could say: We could appeal to a Court of Appeal. Then we

could define what is meant by an appellate court for the purposes of this act.

If we have a decision that is rendered in a provincial court of this Province,

an appellate Court could be the trial division. If we have a decision that is

rendered by or being dealt with either by the Unified Family Court or a Trial

Division Court, the designated Appellate Court would then be the Court of

Appeal.

It seems to me what this allows, Madam Chair, is an option for a claimant, an

option that may be available for an appellant. Again, if geography and costs are

considerations the person can then choose that if a decision is coming from the

provincial court it can then be dealt with in the nearest Trial Division. It

seems to me that it is something that the minister may want to take into account

to deal with the very points that were raised by my learned friend from

Lewisporte.

On that note, Madam Chair, I have concluded my comments at Committee stage

and I will leave any further comment to my colleagues on this side.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders."

(Bill 30)

On motion, clauses 1 to 51 carried.

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

carried.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 18,

An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective

Bargaining Act. (Bill 31)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining

Act." (Bill 31)

MADAM CHAIR: Shall Clause 1 carry?

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Chair?

MADAM CHAIR