December

15, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 77

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

Before we proceed with the routine business of the day the

Chair wishes to address the House on a matter of grave importance.

Yesterday an event took place which appears to be

unparalleled and unprecedented in the history of this House. Yesterday the

Member for Kilbride rose on a point of order and uttered unparliamentary

remarks, whereupon the Chair asked the member to withdraw these remarks. The

Chair afforded the member several opportunities to withdraw. The member declined

to comply with the Chair's request. At that point the Chair was obliged to name

the member. A motion duly put was carried by the House that the Member for

Kilbride withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of yesterday's sitting.

The member did not withdraw from the Chamber. The Chair

recessed the House. Upon resuming, the Speaker afforded the member yet another

opportunity to accede to the Chair's direction. Again the member refused to

withdraw. Then the Chair asked the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the member from

the House. The member again refused even after the Sergeant-at-Arms had asked

for the assistance of the commissionaires. After another recess, it being past

4:30 p.m. and there being no questions for the adjournment debate, the

adjournment motion was put and carried.

The Chair has afforded the member every opportunity to obey

the rules and the orders of the House, yet the member has persisted in

disregarding the authority of the Chair. The member, along with all other

members, indeed has a right and an obligation to express his view; however, the

member has an equal obligation to respect the rules of the House. If members

continue to disregard the authority of the Chair the House is paralysed and

unable to carry out the people's business. This is an affront to all the other

members of the House and must not be allowed to continue.

The Speaker is left with very few options, and hon. members

should realize what those few options are. Being forced to resort to the civil

authorities would be most undesirable and unprecedented, yet the Chair has

according -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Yet the Chair has according to the British parliamentary

tradition this authority. The Chair therefore asks the hon. member to consider

the consequences of his actions in disregarding the authority of the Chair by

not obeying the order to withdraw, and calls upon the member to put the matter

to rest by apologizing for his actions of yesterday, so that the House may

continue uninterrupted with its business.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I want to say first and

foremost that my intent yesterday was not to put Your Honour in the position

that he was put in, or to disregard blatantly the proceedings of the House but

rather to draw attention to the fact that when we debate legislation here, that

we have a responsibility as members to speak the truth, all the time, every

time, as we know it, and I felt, yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier of

this Province did not do that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is not going to get into a debate with the hon.

member on this. The Chair has asked the hon. member to consider his actions, and

is asking him to apologize to the House and to the Chair, for those actions.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me say simply, I apologize

for putting the Speaker in the position that he is in, but I do not withdraw my

comments yesterday and I stand by the comments that I made in this House of

Assembly.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair was not asking the hon. member to

withdraw his comments. The record of yesterday will show what transpired here in

this House, but what the Chair is asking the hon. member to do is, to apologize

for his actions unequivocally.

Is the member apologizing for his -

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for putting you in

the position that you are in, and with that I will sit down.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions to the Premier about Bill 35, the notorious

bill before the House which fundamentally alters Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

and which will significantly increase electricity rates in this Province.

I ask the Premier, what is his rationale for changing the law

to remove Hydro's exclusive right to develop remaining hydro sites in the

Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is fairly simple, Mr. Speaker. The

development of hydro power in the Province should be in the control of the

government and it should be managed by the government at any point in time. It

is not appropriate that it be left from here on in in the hands of Hydro. Hydro

has developed for the most part all of the areas that it was particularly

interested in over the years, and at Hydro's request and on Hydro's

recommendation certain smaller hydro areas were removed from Hydro's right and

they acceded to it being done when proposals were called for the small hydro

developments.

We believe, Mr. Speaker, that the management of future hydro

development ought to be decided by the government at the time that occurs and

not by the Hydro Corporation. As well the objective of government in this piece

of legislation is to do two things. It is to alter the Electrical Power Control

Act to recognize that Hydro is not going to be privatized and is not intended to

be privatized at this time by government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has asked a question and let the hon. Premier

answer.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me state again, the

objective of the bill is twofold. It is to recognize the fact that Hydro is not

being privatized and there is no intention to privatize it. Let me state clearly

the position of the government on that issue. The government will not bring a

measure before this House to privatize Hydro without being satisfied that it has

the support of the majority of the people of this Province. Now, nobody can give

any more assurance than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: The sole purpose of this bill is to place

the laws of the Province's Electrical Power Control Act, and the Hydro

Corporation, managed and owned by the people of this Province, to place it in a

position so it will be done effectively and efficiently. That is the sole

purpose, and in placing Hydro under the regulatory control of the PU board along

with the other utilities, which is what the bill provides for, it is

inappropriate that Hydro be left with the absolute right to develop all

remaining powers. Those powers go back to the government where they were before

that legislation was passed. It is an eminently sensible and sound management

approach, and that is the sole reason for it.

MR. TOBIN: Why cut off debate? Why choke debate? Why are

you forcing it through now?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the Premier is saying touches on extremely important

public policy issues. The Premier has essentially confirmed what the Opposition

has been saying, namely, that Bill 35 is a vitally important legislative

measure, far too important to be rammed through the House of Assembly a few days

before Christmas -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS VERGE: - far too important to be rammed through the

House of Assembly with less than a week's debate, far too important for closure

to be imposed after only four members of the Opposition had a right to speak,

far too important to be withheld from public scrutiny through a public hearing

process. I ask the Premier once again, will the Premier refer Bill 35, amending

the Hydro legislation and the Electrical Power Control Act to a House committee

for public hearings early in the new year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, this whole issue and all of

the principles involved in it were debated when the Electrical Power Control Act

was put to the House. This is a relatively minor amendment to accommodate one

fact, the Electrical Power Control Act when it was passed by this House

contemplated a privatized Hydro. That is not now going to happen. This amendment

is to provide for the fact that Hydro will not be privatized and to allow the

Electrical Power Control Act to operate in light of that fact. All of the issues

and principles involved were fully and thoroughly debated when the Electrical

Power Control Act was before this House. This, in those terms, is a relatively

minor amendment and no, Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary. It is a complete waste

of time and effort to refer this to a parliamentary committee or a legislative

committee.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, I ask him to withdraw

that remark.

MR. WINDSOR: What remark?

MR. SPEAKER: Dictator.

MR. WINDSOR: That is unparliamentary in this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, you cannot refer to members as

dictators.

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, out of respect for the

House I will comply with Your Honour's request, but I remind Your Honour that

Your Honour is here to administer the rules of this House as made by the House,

not to make the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has withdrawn his remarks but I remind the

hon. member that the Chair is not going to tolerate this kind of language,

calling members dictators and cowards. These are clearly unparliamentary and

unacceptable.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier, if this bill amending the Hydro Act and

the Electrical Power Control Act is such a minor bill, why are you using closure

in an unprecedented way, in an anti-democratic way, to shut off debate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS VERGE: - to shut off debate after only four members of

the Opposition had an opportunity to speak?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have a fairly substantial

agenda.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, they have asked a question. I

am prepared to answer it, and if they are civil enough to allow it to be

answered they can criticize my answer but at least hear the answer, be civil

enough to hear the answer.

Mr. Speaker, we have a fairly substantial agenda. There are a

few days before the Christmas recess. Two of the thirty-two days - two of those

thirty-two government working days were used on this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: - were used on this debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, closure doesn't prevent

debate; it puts in place a reasonable limitation on it. Every member of the

House has a right to speak for twenty minutes after closure is introduced, and

as far as I know, I don't think many members on this side of the House want to

take the time, so if the members want the time they can do it; they can have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are not allowed to speak. They are

afraid to speak over there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: What difference does it make to you

whether Bill 35 is passed before Christmas or passed next Spring in the 1996

session of the House of Assembly?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What is the difference?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Because we want to start the process of

managing the hydro-electric affairs of this Province in the best way possible,

as soon as possible. I remind hon. members that the Board of Directors of Hydro

just recently appointed a new Chairman to succeed Mr. Mercer. He takes office on

the first of January. I would like to have matters for Hydro set in place so

that on the first of January, when the new President and CEO of Hydro takes

office, he can start with his team to put Hydro in place in accordance with the

legislative direction of this Legislature.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the EPCA has been on the books for some

time, everybody has known. But we put that legislation before the House in the

form and with the provisions that it has in contemplation that Hydro would be

privatized and would be an investor-owned utility instead of a Crown-owned

utility. We got the clear message from the people of the Province that they did

not want Hydro privatized. That does not alter my opinion that it is still, in

my judgement, the best interest, and that the people have been misled by those

who have opposed it.

Nevertheless, that does not matter. I cannot impose my

judgement on the majority of the people of the Province. So we have adopted the

policy of doing exactly what everybody said at the time: Make Hydro efficient,

make it effective, give it a chance to re-earn money for the government and

people of this Province, and keep it in public ownership, but make it work

effectively. That is precisely what we are doing!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will not the Premier admit that there is absolutely nothing

in this bill to make Hydro more efficient? What is in this bill are provisions

to force the Public Utilities Board to increase Hydro's rate base, to increase

the cost base, and to use a different basis for determining the rate of return,

which is not going to make Hydro one iota more efficient. It is simply going to

extract more money from Light and Power and ultimately from electricity

consumers in this Province. Will not the Premier admit that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, as I explained when the

question was posed, this bill will not cause a rate increase unless the

government directs -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: - unless there is direction. That is

exactly what was said when the interview took place. Unless -

AN HON. MEMBER: Unless you tell them to.

MR. WINDSOR: Backing up now, are you not?

PREMIER WELLS: No, I am not. That is precisely the

statement. Just listen to the tape.

- unless the government directs that the equity-debt ratio

situation in Hydro be changed. Now, Mr. Speaker, we could direct that today!

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, why are you bringing (inaudible)?

PREMIER WELLS: Because that is not the purpose of the

legislation. The purpose of the legislation is to provide for proper regulation

of hydro-electric power and proper management of the government's own utility in

this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 7, 1994 the Premier was the guest of honour at the

annual Prospectors and Developers annual meeting in Toronto. In his speech, the

Premier said, and I quote: Federal and provincial governments, I believe, have

taken a closer look at our mining industry, what we have done to it, the extent

to which we have made it too difficult for them to operate, and the extent to

which we have caused them to look in other areas. The Premier also said: We have

made significant changes in the mining sector tax as well, that acts as an

inducement to investment in mines.

How does the Premier square these statements, selling the

local mining industry against the changes that he brought in yesterday to a tax

law that was only introduced, this time last year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is quite simple, Mr. Speaker.

When the tax law was introduced a year or so ago - it was

announced in the Budget two years ago, I think, and the legislative changes were

brought in about a year or so ago. When it was done, the officials who advised

us as to how to structure it and so on, never contemplated a Voisey's Bay - a

mine that rich, we never contemplated that.

Now, maybe, we should have, maybe, the Cabinet collectively

should have had enough wisdom to contemplate it, maybe the House, collectively

should have had enough wisdom to propose an amendment that would provide for it,

but none of us did; none of us did, Mr. Speaker. The difference between us and

them is, we are prepared to admit that we didn't do it quite right the first

time around. This is an effort to correct that. We gave notice of the intention

in May of this year, and for the last few months, members opposite were saying:

When are you going to bring it in? Well, I agree. I would have liked to have had

it in a long time ago, but, Mr. Speaker, we have been working diligently to make

sure that this time we get it right, that we will not have to go back again.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I said last year, that the hon. member

just quoted, to the annual meeting of the explorationists, I stand by. But, Mr.

Speaker, no self-respecting government can see its laws, whether they were

correctly or incorrectly put, can see its laws continue to remain as they are if

it results in an unfair treatment of the taxpayers of this Province, and the

reason for doing it now is to let all those who are exploring, know beforehand -

not to wait until after the fact, but to tell them beforehand; that is why it is

generic legislation. But it also exempts any smaller mine that has an annual

cash gross sale of the mine, gross revenue of the mine of less that $100 million

is not in any manner affected by that, so this won't, we believe, impair to any

degree at all, any interest of explorers in going out and exploring, but, Mr.

Speaker, it would be unconscionable for us not to protect the public interest in

this way.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay, on a

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all want to protect the public interest and we also want

to protect the growing mineral sector that we do have.

The government has this book that it has been flogging in the

mineral industry for years, talking about a mining-friendly investment climate.

Now, would the Premier not think that keeping the current law in existence and

bringing in some sort of special provision to deal with large projects on a

project-agreement basis, with a revenue agreement and an industrial benefits

agreement including say, a smelter, would be much better in that it does not

change the current law and scare off very finicky investors in the mining

sector?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. member has an opinion on that. I

respect his opinion, but I have to say to him, I disagree with it and if his

friend will let me do it, I will explain why I disagree with it. I respect his

opinion on it and the basis on which he puts it forward is sound, but it is

fairly simple.

If, instead, we adopt his method of saying: we will wait

until you discover something and then we will pounce, what kind of a message are

we sending out? Is it not it more effective and more honest to say to people:

Here is what it will be, up front, so you know.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) exactly what you are doing.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what we are

doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are changing the rules (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what we are

doing now. What we are doing now is telling all who are exploring in Labrador,

in particular, at the moment, that if you have a big find, before you plan your

investment in the money, before you try to sell the rights to the whole world

for hundreds of millions of dollars, before you try to take it out of the

Province so that the people will not get their share, we will tell you up front:

Here is the operation that you will be facing.

Mr. Speaker, that does two things. With great credibility, it

protects the interest of the public of this Province, and it tells people

beforehand what the situation will be, it doesn't pounce on them after the fact.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay, on a

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, the government is already

guilty of changing the rules in the middle of the game. Given the fickleness of

the investment in the mining sector and the fact that, as the Premier said in

his remarks in Toronto, they often go elsewhere when they don't like the

climate, would the Premier consider putting this bill out to a committee of the

House, as we have suggested for the Hydro bill, so that members of the mining

community and members of the general public can have full input. There is no

rush. Voisey's Bay is not going to happen for a year or so, so can we not have

this looked at and have some public hearings on it before it is finalized?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I would say that there is no

need to have it rushed through before Christmas. It is sensible to have it done

so that those who are carrying on mining and exploration activity in January and

February and March, until the House sits again, will know what the rule is. Now,

it will not make any difference in the sense of getting it through before

Christmas in that sense, so I have to say: No, it is not an absolute emergency

or urgent that it be through. Nothing is absolutely dependent on it. We don't

think it will affect a single mine in the Province in January or February - I

have to confess that - but I believe it is important to let those who will be

investing in the companies that are involved in the Voisey's Bay find, know what

the rules will be.

Now, if I were satisfied that the companies accept this as

notification of what the rules are going to be, I would not be adverse to seeing

it debated further in a coming session of the House of Assembly, but I wanted

people to know. It is important that we be fair and straightforward with those

who are investing in the Province, and tell them up front as quickly as we know

what our rules are going to be. It is important that we tell them up front.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay, on a

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my call that the

matter be put out to a committee, but is the Premier specifically confirming

that this bill will not be pushed through before Christmas?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I just answered the hon. member's

question, and I cannot make that decision because it is not mine to make -

MR. WINDSOR: It is the only one in the Province that is

not yours, then.

PREMIER WELLS: - it is a Cabinet decision - but I am

quite prepared to ask government to consider taking that approach, and I can say

to hon. members that we could debate the principle, and the principles are

spelled out, and I think most hon. members agree with the stated principle. The

stated principles are clearly spelled out in it. Our mining tax laws should be

such as to ensure a fair return for the people of this Province, and the

investors who invest in the mine.

Secondly -

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: If the hon. member would just restrain his

noise for a minute he might learn something that would be of value to him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: He drowns out every intelligent thought

with his own noise. It leaves him in the dark as a result.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is

spelled out very clearly. It is to make sure that the depletion of our

non-renewable resources are managed in such a way that those who invest get a

fair return, but also that the people of this Province who own the resources get

a fair return.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: The second principle is, the richer the

mine, the more the people should get.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to get to the answer quickly.

PREMIER WELLS: Very well, Mr. Speaker.

What I am saying is that that principle can be debated, and

if everybody agrees with the principle, we can refer it to a committee after

second reading. It is very simple and very easy to do.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My question is for the Premier.

The Premier is on the record as saying that Bill 35, and I

quote from a transcript with CBC Radio: that this has nothing to do with power

rates, no direct impact on power rates.

Will the Premier stand today and confirm that in fact four or

five provisions of this bill will cause power rates to rise significantly in

this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: May I ask the quote from which he read, so

that I can read it all, and not just the excerpt that he read?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is all of the quote on it.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, if that is all that CBC reported,

they did not report accurately what was said. I have a tape recording of it, so

does CBC, and so do all the news media, and they can tell you - well, I cannot

be responsible for what CBC reports, but what I can say to hon. members is

precisely what I said yesterday, the provisions of Bill C-135 will not, of

themselves, cause a rate increase in this Province. That is my opinion and I

stand by that opinion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 35, not C-135.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, whatever it is. The provisions of

this bill will not - and what I said to the CBC was, will not cause an increase

unless the government does what it can do today without this bill, and direct

that the management investment policy of Hydro be such as to increase its equity

and decrease its debt, and if it does that, that could cause the rates to go up.

We can do that today without the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the point

where we were yesterday in Question Period. The Premier knows full well that

what he is doing with Bill 35 will, in fact, increase the debt of Hydro,

lowering it equity rate and thus causing electrical rates for domestic consumers

or domestic users in this Province to rise. Let me ask him to confirm this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I invite the Member for

Windsor - Buchans, if he wants to speak, to stand and be recognized. If not, sit

down and shut your mouth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the Premier to confirm this. By

proclamation of the Electrical Power Control Act where $8 million a year

remaining on the rural subsidy from industrial users to domestic consumers -

domestic consumers will have to pay that over the next four years - the bill

will authorize Cabinet to require the Public Utilities Board to use the same

basis for calculating hydro rates as is used for setting the rates of

Newfoundland Power, thus boosting Hydro's profit from about $20 million to $40

million. The bill will transfer responsibility of Hydro employees pension plan

from government to Hydro, thus - I ask the Premier to confirm this - thus

spreading the amount of the unfunded liability portion on to hydro rates over

the next fifteen years, and will the Premier confirm that the bill will require

the Public Utilities Board to use different accounting methods to calculate

hydro costs thereby increasing Hydro's demand and to get increased electrical

rates? Will the Premier confirm that those provisions will in fact have that

impact and thus cause electrical rates to increase in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if every provision in it were

implemented immediately, it would cause an increase in rates, but let me remind

hon. members that the hon. member is wrong, it will not cause an increase in

rates for this reason. They are directed to deal with the foreign exchange

problem amortized over forty years, and precisely so as not to cause an increase

in rates. They are directed to deal with the pension deficiency amortized over

twenty or twenty-five years specifically so as not to cause an increase in

rates. It has to be dealt with sometime. It was those members opposite when they

had responsibility for government who borrowed in a foreign currency and put us

in this position!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: We are trying to clean up their mess and,

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to do it in an orderly and civilized way that will

not see power increases.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, we are also trying to

provide for sound rates for businesses in this Province so that they do not come

to us and say we would like to build a business here but your power rates are

out of whack. You caused the business element to subsidize the resident element

of it. So your power rates are out of whack and if they said that, they would be

right. So does that mean they go then to Quebec where there is a different

situation where business rates are in fact subsidized? That is what they would

do. We have 50,000 people out of work, Mr. Speaker, and we need all the jobs we

can get. So this provides for adjustment on the extent to which business is

subsidizing the residential rate, over a period of time, so as to avoid a

specific increase in rates. That is the purpose of this legislation, not to

cause it. Now the hon. member is entitled to his opinion if he thinks it will do

the opposite but that is my opinion and I give it honestly to this House, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the reality of the situation

is this, that the total increase in Hydro rates will add up to a very

substantial amount which we estimate to be between $30 million and $40 million.

Now let me remind this Premier, that it is $30 million to $40 million a year.

Now Premier, be forthright with the people of the Province, tell them that you

are commercializing Hydro. That as a result, electricity rates will

substantially increase and why are you doing that? Why will you not admit to it,

to the people of this Province and to this House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will not admit to it for

the simple fact that it is not correct. It is not accurate, Mr. Speaker! Now, I

respect the hon. member's judgement. He has a right to hold that opinion. He

also has a right to express it but I have a right to my opinion too and not only

a right but a responsibility as Premier of the Province to express that

judgement to the people of the Province. Now this government will answer to the

people of the Province if we are wrong on this but our purpose is not to

increase. We do not believe that the actions that we are taking will cause

themselves now an increase in Hydro rates or in the foreseeable future. We do

not believe it will provoke an increase in the Hydro rates. We are trying to

correct the mess they made in the past over a period of time. Now I should say,

Mr. Speaker, that the pension is not twenty or twenty-five years, it is

amortized over fifteen years. The foreign exchange loss is amortized over forty

years, Mr. Speaker, so as to avoid any possibility of an increase and we do not

believe it will cause one.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

On a point of order, the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was a great

kerfuffle in this House because of comments that the Premier made to the media

and this morning I listened to the Government House Leader on the media and, Mr.

Speaker, I am not prepared to say that the Government House Leader lied to the

people or that he intentionally misled the people but I am prepared to say that

he didn't give the right information to the people.

The Government House Leader this morning stated on the media

that this resolution on closure did not immediately cut off debate, that it

would have provided an opportunity for all members to speak for twenty minutes.

What he didn't tell the media this morning is that before he had given notice to

this House that before he got to the closure motion he wanted five pieces of

legislation dealt with. He wanted second reading on

An Act Respecting Provincial

Offences. The first time we saw it was the day before. He wanted Committee of

the Whole on other bills respecting -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what I'm saying is that the

Minister of Justice was not forthright this morning. What was told to the people

of this Province was not right. It is that he was either going to choke debate

on five pieces of legislation -

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

MR. TOBIN: - or choke debate, Mr. Speaker, on the closure

motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is not a point of order that the hon. member is raising.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

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

point of order.

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

don't rise on points of order very lightly in this House, as members know, but I

want to make a point of order related to a comment made by the Premier this

morning in Question Period. I wouldn't do it during Question Period. That is

about the amount of time that has been taken for debate on Bill No. 35. Four

people have participated in the debate: The Leader of the Opposition, the Member

for St. John's East, the Member for Green Bay and the Member for Kilbride.

My point is that these members only spoke on the provisions

of the Standing Orders of this House. The Leader of the Opposition who responded

first was entitled to an hour, and the other members thirty minutes. My point to

the Premier - the point of order is, that if you don't want members to speak for

thirty minutes or twenty minutes or ten minutes as provided in the Standing

Orders, then the way to do it is to change the Standing Orders of the House to

reduce members' debating time. Not to bring in closure such as we've seen

brought into this House on every important piece of legislation in this House.

I want to make the point of order that if the Premier wants

to go about it in somewhat of a legitimate way then the thing to do is to change

the Standing Orders. Don't blame it on us because we get up and speak for the

time allotted under the Standing Orders, which for all of us in this case is

thirty minuets until we get the closure which is twenty minutes. Change the

Standing Orders if you want to reduce the length of time. That is my point of

order.

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

point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: If I may briefly, Mr. Speaker. The situation

is quite straightforward. The government under the rules of the House has the

right to ask the House to invoke a procedure known as closure. When that happens

every member is entitled to speak once and once only, but for not more than

twenty minutes. There is another -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Torquemada, the Grand

Inquisitor from Ferryland, might let me finish my sentence.

Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 50 also -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Standing Order 50, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Thank, you, Mr. Speaker. Standing Order 50

also provides that the debate shall end not later than 1:00 a.m. If for example

we were to call the closure motion at 12:00 a.m. only three members would be

allowed to speak before the vote was taken. We have no such intention of doing

that, nor have we ever done so. We are quite prepared when we ask the House

through the closure motion to do it in sufficient time to allow every member

opposite to speak for the full twenty minutes that he or she is allowed. In the

case of several of them that would be the second speech they've made on the

bill.

I submit there is simply no point of order. What we have is a

group of members opposite who, for whatever reason, don't want to let the House

get on with the business and deal with the merits of the legislation before us.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland on the

point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Government House Leader gave the

impression to this House that every single person can speak on a closure motion.

Since I came into this House people have been denied the right to speak on a

closure motion because the Government House Leader had not called that motion in

time to give everybody their twenty-minute allotment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We had no assurance from that Government

House Leader when he would call that closure motion. He had five other pieces of

business on the Order Paper for that day that he intended to call - one we only

saw the day before - that had significant impacts on the City of St. John's and

other jurisdictions in this Province, and to tell us that we would have had

time, we never had that assurance. He has denied it, and he has tried to give

the impression to the public and to this House that that was the case. That is

wrong, and I ask the Government House Leader to apologize for misleading the

people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, obviously there has not been a breach

of procedure established by our Standing Orders, so there is really no point of

order.

Notices of Motion

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: I give notice that I will, on today, ask leave

to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Taxation of Utilities And

Cable Television Companies Act".

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will,

on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The

Medical Act," (Bill No. 50).

Petitions

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of

Menihek, the residents of Labrador City and Wabush. The prayer of the petition

is:

WHEREAS because of budgetary restraint new school busing

proposals are unrealistic and dangerous; and

WHEREAS extreme climatic conditions and local conditions

force students to use school buses;

THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the government

allocate necessary funding to permit the continuing operation of a safe and

reliable school busing program in Western Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the proposals by the government to save money on

the backs of children in Labrador is unconscionable. The parents feel it is

callous, uncaring, and cruel. It is unconscionable for a government to sacrifice

children's safety on the idea of saving $300,000. The implementation of the

program that the government has recommended for school busing in Western

Labrador will cause to have triple runs in busing that will see students out at

the bus stop at 7:00 a.m. It will see the winter season change to April 15, when

after April 15 recorded temperatures in Western Labrador have been known, over

the years, to be down below 40 ̊

below zero.

This government, sitting in the comfort of their Cabinet

room, with their thick, lush carpets, oak chairs -

AN HON. MEMBER: And fur coats.

MR. A. SNOW: - and fur coats, and crystal, I suppose, and

china coffee cups, they are making a decision in the Cabinet room to send the

children out at 30 ̊

below zero. It ain't 30 ̊

below zero in the Cabinet room, I will guarantee you. By the hot air that comes

out of the Cabinet minister who spoke here in Question Period, it is not 30 ̊

below zero in that Cabinet room.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The former President of the NTA should have

a conscience. He should understand that children, when they go to school at 30 ̊

below zero, it is unsafe for them when it is pitch dark. At 7:15 in Western

Labrador it is pitch dark. The parents say it is unsafe; yet the former

President of the NTA, who sold himself out when he got to the Cabinet room - he

forgot the problems of the classroom - now we are seeing this government

implement a program of school busing that is going to cause an unsafe condition

in Labrador for children. Cabinet ministers, like the Minister of Tourism,

forgot the students in the whole Province. He forgot the people of the whole

Province, and that is what is wrong with this government.

The fact that school busing is going to be restricted to

force parents who have their children in the French Immersion program in Western

Labrador, the kids - some fifty or sixty of them - who live in Wabush, will

either have to provide their own transportation to school or withdraw from that

French Immersion program. So these programs, this cut of $300,000 will lower the

quality of education in Western Labrador if these children have to drop out of

this particular program.

It will do away with the lunch runs. There will be no lunch

runs in Western Labrador, in the school busing programs. The students will have

to carry lunches to school. Out of the five schools that we have only one school

has cafeteria facilities. So the students are expected to either eat in the

corridors or the gymnasium which will cut out the extracurricular activities, or

in the classrooms. That is unsuitable for students in 1995 to be doing that when

all that is necessary is to have the necessary funds to deliver the busing

system that was built, designed by and paid for by the people of Western

Labrador.

This government institutes changes that will cause them to

make these changes and cause the students in Western Labrador to have to use the

busing system which is unsafe and will ultimately lower the quality of education

in Western Labrador. I ask this government to reconsider what it is doing to

this busing program in Western Labrador, take into consideration that it is

unsafe, take into consideration that it is going to lower the quality of

education for the students of Western Labrador, and to tell the people in

Western Labrador that it will reinstate the funding of $300,000 so that the

children of Western Labrador can attend school in a safe and reliable manner,

Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want

to rise to support the petition presented by my colleague for Menihek. It

doesn't look like anyone from the government side is going to stand even to

acknowledge the petition.

It is an issue that the Member for Menihek is taking very

seriously, because it is an issue that the people of Labrador West are taking

very seriously, changes to the school busing system in their communities. The

member has over a number of days presented a number of petitions, and quoted

from letters sent to him by parents about concerns that they have for their

children when this school busing system is changed, and the safety aspect that

the member has alluded to, of going to school in the morning when it is dark and

very cold. No busing home at lunchtime, schools not equipped in some cases with

a cafeteria.

It is a very serious concern that any member in this House

should bring forward on behalf of his or her constituents and the Member for

Menihek has done that very well. But several members opposite, in particular

ministers opposite, seem to treat this matter rather lightly. They laugh at the

member when he brings it forward. They think he is being too repetitive. They

think he is falsifying the situation in Labrador West. But I mean, any of us who

have any familiarity whatsoever with the situation there knows that the climatic

conditions in Labrador West are indeed extreme at this time of year, I say to

the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. If there is one minister in

this House who should know about the different climatic conditions around this

Province, whether it is for implications for school busing or for attracting

people into the Province for tourism benefits, it should be the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

But he always seems to attack and turn on the Member for

Menihek every time he presents a petition on this issue here. He seems to treat

it so lightly, but it is not a light issue. It is a matter of grave concern. I

want to stand this morning to support the petition put forward by the Member for

Menihek. I was hoping that someone from the government side would at least get

up and respond to the petition, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Because

there aren't too many - well, none of them over there are allowed to speak on

the most important issues affecting our Province, like Hydro, like the mineral

tax, like the educational reform issue.

How many on the other side stood and talked about the great

educational reform debate, participated in that? What do we see now? It is not

going to even pass the House of Commons in this calendar year. It was the

expenditure of a couple of million dollars, and tied up this Province for months

in debate, and where is it now? Where are all the educational reforms that this

Premier promised? He told the people of this Province that it would be dealt

with in the federal system by the end of this calendar year.

I'm not surprised that they aren't standing in their places

and expressing concern or responding to petitions and other matters brought

forward by members on this side. But I just wish that over the Christmas break

more members - there are some over there - but I hope more members start looking

inwardly at themselves to see what their roles really are in this House and in

this Legislature. It is to represent the people who elected you and sent you

here, not to be silent and give silent consent to what Clyde Wells, Ed Roberts,

Chris Decker and Roger Grimes want you to give silent consent to. Stand up and

be counted for the people who sent you here, Mr. Speaker, this very important

issue -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Stand up and be counted, Mr. Speaker,

because I assure you, if you do not, that on election night you won't be counted

very many times from the ballots coming out of the ballot box. So stand up now

and stand up for the people of the Province.

I see the Member for Windsor - Buchans - his alarm clock went

off again, Mr. Speaker. He missed many calls in his lifetime, very important

calls, but he is awake this morning. It is good to see that the Member for

Kilbride did something that no one else could do in my thirteen years here, and

that is wake up the Member for Windsor - Buchans.

I want to conclude by supporting the petition presented by

the Member for Menihek.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for

Fogo.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give (inaudible) that

when I have had a chance to review the proceedings of today's session and have

made arrangements (inaudible) pertaining to the actions (inaudible) of the

Member for Kilbride. That action, depending on the (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I had trouble

hearing the Member for Fogo, no reflection on him but I just want to

(inaudible). I wonder if he could repeat it so that we could hear, as well as to

have it recorded, please.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice -

AN HON. MEMBER: Your mike is still off.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, I think that mike will pick up the

hon. member's comments.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that, when I

have had a chance to review the proceedings of today's session, to get a chance

to review it in Hansard, I may be raising a point of privilege. I want to give

notice to Your Honour now, as it concerns the actions of the Member for Kilbride

and that action, on my part of raising a point of privilege, may come as early

as Monday. My initial reaction, Mr. Speaker, is that the rights of members in

this Legislature, to do their job, has been seriously impeded by what has gone

on in the last few days, but I want to review Hansard first.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a few comments with respect to the

petition presented in the House by the hon. the Member for Menihek and to assure

all hon. members that the government has and continues to take the issue of

school busing in the Province generally and in Labrador West, in particular,

very seriously. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would like to report that

just recently myself and the hon. the Government House Leader, the Minister of

Justice as Chair of our Cabinet Committee on Labrador matters, and the

parliamentary assistant to the Premier, were in Labrador West. We met with

residents of the area with respect to this issue. They understand and know and I

believe the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, that there are continuing meetings

with respect to that issue in Labrador West. There are legitimate concerns about

the busing situation, particularly with the extreme climatic conditions in that

part of our Province.

It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member has repeatedly

raised this issue in the House. I have laughed at some of his speeches and I did

so again today because, Mr. Speaker, while we do take the issue very seriously,

I, for one member of the House, do sometimes question the seriousness of the

hon. member presenting them when he gets off the issue and starts with his

normal diatribe about china, posh offices, heated spaces, fur coats and all the

nonsense he gets on with. I would like to remind him, Mr. Speaker, and other

hon. members that what he refers to is a state of mind and a state of government

that was here when his friends opposite were the government. Because we had to

take the china out of the private dining room in this building when we formed

the office in 1989 and pass it over to the former Premier, Mr. Peckford, who

still had it in his house until he left the Province. We had to take cases of

liquor out of the private dining room across the hall here. He is referring to a

situation that prevailed when they were the government, not when we are the

government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is -

Order, please!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Will the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation also point out that he had to take his golf clubs out of the

Premier's car? It had to be done, Mr. Speaker, after it was raised in the House

of Assembly by members of the Opposition, because he was using government

property to transport his golf clubs back and forth to the golf course rather

than working for the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order, but I remind the hon. minister

that he is on a petition and he should stick to the prayer of the petition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I repeat again that we do take the issue very seriously and

it is because of the very nature of exactly what the hon. member just exhibited

that we do question his sincerity, because all he has been interested in each

time, somewhere in his five-minute presentation - he starts off presenting the

issue seriously and then always spends a minute-and-a-half, or two minutes,

getting on with a diatribe of absolute foolishness totally unrelated to the

petition. I will get a good laugh out of that part of his speech when he

presents it again on the next day the House meets, on Monday, and I will

probably get a good laugh again on Tuesday. I tell you, the issue is very

serious, but the diatribe that the hon. member throws in each time is great

comic relief and it really does raise the question as to whether he is serious

about the issue or just presenting the petition so that he can get up and get on

with a pile of foolishness.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a

petition on behalf of 214 people from the Lewisporte area who are opposed to

Sunday shopping in this Province. I would sincerely hope, if the minister stands

to respond to this petition, that he do so with some sincerity as it relates to

Sunday shopping, and not stand to try to bail himself out of the situation where

he laughed at the fact that children in Labrador have to go to school in minus

thirty degree temperatures, as the minister just did. He laughed at the children

and not what the minister said. That is what is going on in this House day-in

and day-out. And that is the same minister who is making a decision on Sunday

shopping in this Province. They are the same group of ministers who sit around

the table. Can you question if they take anything in this Province seriously,

when they laugh at the fact that there are children in Labrador going to school

in thirty below temperatures?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, on

a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West applauded his colleague, the Member for Kilbride yesterday for saying that

we are here in the House and committed to telling the truth and presenting the

facts as they are. He knows in his representation of what I laugh at that it is

the exact opposite of what he is now saying. Why would he try to suggest that I

or anybody else on this side of the House laughs about the conditions in

Labrador West in busing? I explained in my presentation a minute ago that we

laugh at the member and his lack of sincerity. The issue is very serious, and

now this member tries to twist words and totally misrepresent my representation

of the issue. He should either tell the truth of the issue or withdraw what he

is saying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat. There is no point of

order. I remind the hon. member, he is on a petition and should stick to the

prayer of that petition.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking very clearly to the

petition. I am questioning the judgement of this government when ministers laugh

at people when a sincere member presents a petition in this House on behalf of

children who have to go to school in minus thirty degree temperatures. They are

laughed at by such ministers as the minister opposite who just stood to bail

himself out. I have every right to question his ability to make a decision as it

relates to Sunday shopping. Sure, I applauded my colleague, the Member for

Kilbride, and I applaud anyone who stands for decency and honesty for the people

of this Province in this Chamber, I say to the minister.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as it relates to the petition, these 214

people from the Lewisporte area are concerned about Sunday shopping in this

Province or they would not have faxed the petition in to be presented, as have

people from the Corner Brook area, from the St. John's area, from Harbour Grace,

from Carbonear. People from all over this Province are faxing in petitions, and

I sincerely hope that their cries and their appeals will be listened to and that

this government will do the right and honourable thing and respond to the

request of these people that is coming through the Opposition, and will listen

to what the Opposition are saying on behalf of these people.

We are speaking out as an Opposition on behalf of the people

of this Province and we are asking the government to withdraw this piece of

legislation from the Order Paper. If not, Mr. Speaker, we may not be given the

opportunity to debate it once it is called, because this government have been

known, they hold a record, as my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank said this

morning, I heard him on the media, nowhere in the British Parliamentary system

has closure been used as a tool, so often, as this government have used it, and

I would have great problems if this government want to bring in closure motions

on something as important as Sunday shopping. Because, if they don't withdraw it

from the Order Paper, I would suspect that it will be a long Christmas in this

Legislature. And it is time for the backbenchers over there, to stand up to this

government, to show some courage, and to tell this government and the Premier,

that the gag order is unacceptable, that the hob-nailed boot days are over in

this Province, that we are not going to lie down, Mr. Speaker, and that the

Opposition are going to respond.

Mr. Speaker, government should realize that the people on

this side of the House have had it up to there, with the cold, uncaring, callous

attitude of this government as it relates to our democratic right to debate in

this House, as it relates to our right to defend the truth in this House -

MR. L. MATTHEWS: You have no respect for democratic right

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, he is the man who has no respect.

All you have to do is look at what he is doing to the sick and the suffering of

this Province. If he had respect, he would do something for the poor and the

sick and the suffering, instead of taking away their home care -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - instead of closing down their hospital beds,

instead of denying them the right to medical facilities. I say to him, don't

talk about respect -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: - when you have just issued a brutal attack,

the most brutal attack that has ever been issued in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman from

Burin - Placentia West wasn't addressing his remarks to me so I will not respond

to them, but let me just simply say in response to the petition, that the hon.

gentleman has given us a prime example of hysterical histrionics. He knows - I

believe he knows full well, if not let me tell him full well - to show you the

depth of the commitment and the sincerity, and he spoke of commitment and

sincerity, let it be on the record that I recall telling him several days ago

that the Shops Closing Act would not be called for debate.

MR. TOBIN: You never told me.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman tells me

I did not tell him, I accept his word, of course, but I will tell him I have a

firm recollection of being in a conversation to which he was a party, in which I

said that two bills would not be called in this session; one was the Shops

Closing Act -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) hearing aid.

MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

order.

MR. TOBIN: I do not have my hearing aid turned off, but I

do have a hearing impairment, Mr. Speaker, like thousands of other

Newfoundlanders and again, we see you laughing at people with impairments in

this Province. You are just a joke, laughing at the deaf and mute in this

Province, that is the type of character you are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. gentleman to get to his point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, my point of order, is that this

House has never been told by the minister responsible nor by the Government

House Leader that this legislation will be withdrawn and until such time, Mr.

Speaker, as we are notified, we are very suspicious of what this government

might do, so I am really encouraged to hear the minister say he is going to

withdraw the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, that intervention is typical of

the hon. gentleman. I did not say the House had been told. I said, I was part of

a conversation and my recollection is that the hon. gentleman was there. Now,

whether he heard, I know not, and whether if he heard, he understood, I know

not, and if he heard and understood and recollected, I know not. What I do know

is, he was part of the conversation - that's my recollection - in which I said

there were two bills that will not be called for debate. One is Bill No. 5, the

Works, Services and Transportation amendment act, the departmental amendment act

and the second is the famous Shops Closing legislation, Bill No. 49, and that is

all I want to say on this particular - The hon. gentleman gets up and makes this

histrionic, hysterical, hypocritical speech -

MR. TOBIN: Is that unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: If he is saying it about you, yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, If I have used an

unparliamentary -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) unparliamentary, (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: It is quite parliamentary.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in my judgement, the hon.

gentleman was hysterical, hypocritical and histrionic and he has just given us

further evidence of that, and that being said, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more

to say on the petition.

Thank you.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne, 6th Edition, clearly

states that it is unparliamentary to refer to someone as a hypocrite or

hypocritical.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't say you were, but that your

speech was. (Inaudible). He didn't refer to you, he said your speech was.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: I'm delighted, Mr. Speaker, that you finally

found out something about parliamentary procedure.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order. The Chair will just check Hansard, but

I believe what the hon. member said was: Hypocritical statements, or something

of that nature. I'm not sure but I will check the -

MR. TOBIN: He said I was being hypocritical (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will check Hansard to see.

MR. TOBIN: What is the difference?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: What's the difference (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will review Hansard.

MR. TOBIN: If there are going to be rules in this House,

you have to (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if I might first move that the House do not adjourn

at noon, please.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do

not adjourn at noon.

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against. Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The first part of the day's business will be to deal with the

business that we ought to have dealt with yesterday were it not for other

events. That was laid out when I moved the adjournment motion on Wednesday. We

will begin with the provincial offences act, which I assume will not take long,

but we shall see. Then we will go in and deal at Committee stage with three

bills which have been passed at second reading, and then referred through to the

Standing Order 84 committee, and have been reported back with clear bills and a

recommendation, I believe, that we proceed to adopt them.

Then we will deal with the mineral impost bill, which is not

the mining tax act or the minerals act but is a very minor, technical bill. That

will then bring us through to the second reading debate on the Hydro act, Bill

No. 35.

I don't know how long the House will sit. That, of course, is

the decision of the members, and in part will be determined by how many members

wish to speak on each matter and for how long. But we must get on with our

business. We have only two or three days left before Christmas. Now, I

understand the Cabinet will -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) December 25th?

MR. ROBERTS: I beg your pardon?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No. My hon. friend, the Member for Grand

Bank can accuse me of many things but I'm not the Grinch who stole Christmas.

Your Honour, before we get into the badinage let me deal with

two other points that members may wish to - I gather my colleagues and I are

going to consider whether we will ask an appropriate committee to deal with the

mineral tax amendments after they receive second reading, assuming they receive

second reading. If they don't receive second reading then the question, of

course, is moot. Secondly, I believe the two bills of which notice was given

today are either printed or about to be printed.

AN HON. MEMBER: More?

MR. ROBERTS: No, the notice was given today. One is the

Attorney General's act -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My friend, the Member for Ferryland did this

to me earlier. If he would let me finish my half-baked, pathetic, inchoate

thoughts, then he could come in with his penetrating, incisive, inquisitorial

questions. Let me try to get it out first, in my own humble little way, you

know? After twenty-five years in the House, I have had a degree of experience,

and I say to my friend, the Member for Ferryland, I have seen better than him.

Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make is that we gave two

notices today. I understand those bills, if they are not printed, are about to

be printed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, the medical act, I hope, is being

printed as we speak. What I would ask is that if the House is prepared to take

the Notices of Motion and convert them into first readings - as soon as the

bills are physically available they will be distributed to members, and members

can then read them and do as they wish with them. I would ask if we could have

leave to have both those bills read a first time today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair just wants to clarify. What order

is the hon. member calling first?

MR. ROBERTS: I am asking for leave, Mr. Speaker, to deal

with the two notices of motion which were given today.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: It will need leave, but if the House is

prepared to give leave -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: For first reading of these bills?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: Then we will distribute them as soon as they

are physically available, which I believe will be today.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave for second

reading?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, first reading.

MR. SPEAKER: First reading, I am sorry.

On motion, following bills read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable

Television Companies Act." (Bill No. 51)

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the bills will be available. I

can tell the House briefly what is in them.

The amendment to the Cable Utilities Act recognizes the fact

that when the bill was passed the only telephone utility was Newfoundland

Telephone. We now have Unitel, Sprint and others, and there is also an amendment

in there to address a situation which affects in particular the municipality of

Wabush in Labrador where there is a very unique situation. I believe members

opposite are familiar with that, and there is a provision to address the

situation there. That bill is urgent and we will have to ask the House to deal

with it before the House adjourns. Again, I think members opposite are aware of

why it is urgent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, members can see it and make their own

decision.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I believe it is printed, in which case the

hon. gentleman will see it as soon as -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I already said ten minutes ago, before he

began his latest inquisition. The hon. gentleman should go down to Provincial

Court some time and see how it is really done, by real lawyers.

MR. SULLIVAN: When are we going to see it?

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend from Ferryland: (

a) as

soon as it is available. Secondly, I have already said two or three times that I

understand one is now physically available, and will be distributed as soon as

the Pages can get it around and, secondly, the other one is at the printers and

I understand will be in the House shortly, and it will be distributed as soon as

it is here.

If my hon. friend wants, I can tell him what the Medical Act

addresses. If he doesn't want to, I am prepared to wait. I know what is in it.

If the hon. gentleman wants to know what is in it I will tell him. If he

doesn't, let him wait.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. The hon. gentleman can read it,

too.

It is a bill addressed at a situation that has arisen with

respect to the peer review of the doctors in Newfoundland and Labrador by

doctors who are licensed to practice in other provinces but come in here by

arrangement with the medical association or the medical board to conduct peer

reviews, and the bill deals with some concerns that have been raised in

connection with that process.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, the peer group review is part of the

ongoing, if you wish, licensing/discipline/professional responsibility exercise

carried out by the board and the medical association.

AN HON. MEMBER: The medical board.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, the board has the discipline authority

but the medical association also has a role, of course. That is what the bill

does. It takes a fair number of words to do it, but that is the purpose of it.

The reason they were not here before, it was only yesterday Cabinet gave

authority for the final approval on them.

Now, Your Honour, with that said perhaps we can call the

long-awaited Order 37, Bill No. 47, the Provincial Offences Act.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting

Provincial Offences". (Bill No. 47)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I shall be brief on this because I believe the bill is a very

straightforward piece of legislation and ought not to require a great deal of

comment from me, but I will try to outline what it does and what it does not do,

and deal with one matter in particular which seems to have gotten some public

attention, and that is to deal with the effect upon municipalities. Then, if

there are further questions we can deal with them at the appropriate time.

Your Honour, this bill essentially achieves two purposes. The

first is to re-enact the

Summary Proceedings Act. The name is changed to the

Provincial Offences Act, and members will note that the

Summary Proceedings Act,

in fact, is repealed and replaced by this. That is done by the second-last

section of the bill, but the substantive provisions of the

Summary Proceedings

Act, without exception, are re-enacted.

There are some consequential changes made because of the

Fatalities Investigations Act, because the Fatalities Investigations Act, as

members will recall, now requires judges to play a role in looking into untimely

or untoward deaths. That role has been set aside and is being replaced by the

provisions of the medical examiners in the Fatalities Enquiry Act. Other than

that the substantive provisions of the present

Summary Proceedings Act have been

reenacted in this bill. I know that members are aware of the

Summary Proceedings

Act and what it does so I will not go on and talk about it any further.

The second purpose of this bill, and it is a very important

one, is it will give the Cabinet, the Governor in Council, the authority to

implement in respect of all provincial offences the system which we now use in

respect of - if memory serves me correctly and perhaps my speaking notes will

deal with this, the Highway Traffic Act, the Alcoholic Liquors Act, and two or

three other bits of legislation. I do not have a list of offences that are

currently ticketable, but a substantial number coming from those offences are

ticketable, and this bill will give us the authority by regulation to make them

all ticketable. The reason we are asking for a regulation making authority is

because it will take some time to phase in the system. Members will note as well

that the bill is subject to proclamation in whole or in part by the Cabinet, and

that, too, reflects the reality that we will need a little time to make the

mechanical adjustments needed to bring this system in. It is our intention to

proceed as quickly as possible.

Now, the ticket system may require a little description. The

normal way in which one is held to account for a breach of a provincial statute

is this, an enforcement officer, it could be a member of the Constabulary, a

member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, anyone of the wide range of

individuals who are authorized for one purpose or another to be enforcement

officers, observes an individual committing an offence, and the office then

attends a provincial court or before a justice of the peace to swear out a

information. Now, an information is just a document which is called an

information, and that document sets out the charge and sets out the reason in

the officer's belief why he or she has reasonable and probably grounds to

believe that the named defendant has in fact committed the offence described in

the information. Members may, from time to time, have been on the receiving end

of an information.

In any event, that is what happens. The officer has to say

that one has reasonable and probable cause, and that is the same procedure as is

used in criminal offences other than those where there is an instant arrest or

an arrest under a warrant. Once the information has been sworn it is issued by

the court. Fine, that is an automatic procedure and the necessary papers are

filed, the necessary fee, if there is one, is paid, the necessary stamp is put

on it, and of we go. The information has been issued and a summons is issued.

The defendant is then served with the summons. The accused then comes to court

and enters his or her plea.

I say to my friends from the press that I will be happy to

talk to them in the scrum, the eloquently named scrum, as soon as I finish

speaking with the House. I can only do one thing at once.

The accused enters a plea, and if the accused pleads guilty,

then conviction is entered and a sentence is imposed, and if the accused pleads

not guilty then a trial date is set and the matter goes on in the normal way,

and in due course is resolved. That is a fairly complicated and time consuming

system. The ticketing system works very differently. The officer observes the

offence being committed, if there is no observation by an officer then there is

no way in which one can be held to account, the officer serves a ticket on a

defendant on the spot. Members who have may run afoul of the speeding

regulations on the Trans-Canada or one of our other highways would be familiar

with this. They get a ticket on the spot.

The ticket specifies the offence, specifies the

section and

the statute, the events which caused the offence, and also specifies the fine.

Now, I will come back to that because that is an important point. The defendant

then, the recipient of the ticket, may either enter a not guilty plea by mail,

enter a plea in person, pay the fine voluntarily, or simply do nothing. Whatever

the defendant chooses to do the officer files the ticket with the court. If the

defendant pleads guilty and pays the fine voluntarily, well that is the end of

it, you have brought yourself square. It is like my friend from Kilbride

apologizing to the House, that brings the issue square. That is pretty basic to

our system. If the defendant does not do anything, if the defendant simply

ignores and just simply says: well I will let it pile up, life goes on, we will

see what happens. A justice - and that means a judge - may convict the defendant

in the absence of the hearing without the taking of evidence if the ticket is

complete and regular on its face.

If however the defendant pleads not guilty, then a trial date

is set and word is sent to the defendant. So the choices are there. The

defendant can plead guilty and get it over with if he or she believes that they

are guilty and are prepared to accept the penalty. They can plead not guilty in

which a trial date will be set, all the rights are preserved. They show up with

counsel if they wish. The Crown makes its case, the defendant makes its case and

then the judge makes a decision and that is it or if they do nothing the court

can convict them without a hearing assuming the formalities have been observed

and the judge is convinced that the case is made out on the papers. Now that is

the provincial ticketing system. It has been in force, with respect to the

Highway Traffic Act, for eight or ten years. I suspect it was done by our

predecessors in office and if that is the case I give them credit for it. It is

a good system, it works very well. We extended it a year or two ago to most of

the forestry offenses and I believe there were a substantial number of alcoholic

liquor offenses perhaps to others as well.

Now I said, and this is a point I want to stress, that the

system applies only where the fine is specified. It is easy to say if you drive

to fast and you are twenty miles over the speed limit the fine is x dollars. We

can do that in regulations or in legislation as the House authorizes but there

are a range of offenses through which the fine ranges from - there is one in the

environment act, I believe, that ranges from $100 to $500,000 and obviously

depending on the severity of the offense. It is like this ridiculous campaign I

have been subjected to by people who believe that Paul Watson was in danger of

being sent to jail for life if he had been convicted on those relatively minor

criminal code charges which he faced in connection with that incident on the

Grand Banks a couple of years ago. If Captain Watson had been convicted of those

he would have been sentenced possibly to a term of incarceration, I don't know,

but certainly not to life in jail and yet I have had a couple of thousand post

cards from people who say how barbaric of you Canadians to put this man in jail

for simply going out and breaking the law in such a minor way. Well someone said

he is not breaking the law, he can make his own law in their view, and the

courts have dealt with that.

In respect to those offenses where the fine or the possible

penalty is a wide ranging one, the ticket will not be used. There we will simply

use the same information and summons system we use now. The defendant still has

the option to plead guilty but that will require a court to hear evidence and

decide upon the appropriate penalty. Now, Mr. Speaker, the ticketing system is a

very large step forward. It makes the system much more efficient, much more

workable. I understand, in fact, the federal government are about to start using

it. They are going to start using it and I understand they essentially have

adopted the procedures we have had in effect here for a number of years. Well if

imitation is the sincerest form of flattery I guess Allan Rock owes me one. I

will remind him when next we speak or when next we meet. So I have no hesitation

in commending the system to the House and asking the House to support the parts

of the bill that deal with that.

Just let me go through the bill. Part one of the bill - I

won't go through it

section by

section - part one is virtually identical to part

one of the current

Summary Proceedings Act. Part two is the part which deals

with ticketable offenses and I have described that

section at some length. Part

three deals with an improved fine collection system for cities, municipalities

and the Province. Now we have seen a little bit of hullabaloo by the Mayor of

St. John's who has a concern, and I accept his concern as being legitimate and

am prepared to deal with it on its merits, which in my view are not many. I am

prepared to deal with them but it should be noted that the bill also will enable

municipalities to collect the fines that they are entitled to collect, enable

them to collect them much, much more efficiently.

First of all, cities and towns, where a fine is payable to

them, will be able to register the judgement imposing the fine as a judgement of

the Trial Division of the Supreme Court. That is comparable to the way we now

collect RST. We simply file an order signed by the minister and that becomes a

judgement and can be executed upon in the appropriate way. Once a court orders a

fine to be paid it will enable the municipality to register it as a judgement.

That is a big step forward. My friend for St. John's East

Extern was mayor of a municipality. I suspect he will confirm that if you take a

man or woman into court for not paying their taxes, you get a fine imposed, and

it doesn't do you any good because you can't collect on it. Because you then

have to sue on the judgement. Now we will enable the judgement, the fine - and a

fine is a judgement of the court - to be registered. Then enforcement can be

taken in the ways available to enforce any judgement of the Supreme Court, and

they are substantial, far-ranging and effective.

We are also asking for authority to refuse to renew driver's

licences for any unpaid fine, period. We have shown I think in the motor vehicle

case that this is the most effective collection method ever devised. Most of us

have a driver's licence. There are, from recollection, about 350,000 driver's

licences out there. They come up for renewal from time to time. Is it a

three-year cycle now? Is it five with the new pictures?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Five with the pictures? But they do come up

from time to time and we just get the print-off. We also use it on vehicle

registration which is still annual. We all see the print-outs. I manage to avoid

them most of the time but I have a couple of daughters who regularly feature in

the - I keep getting letters from the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation about unpaid fines. Some of the vehicles are registered in my

name, but I have to tell you, I am not parking them over in the Memorial

University parking lot.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Do they? I'm sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not sure, I don't know. I've sinned in

many ways but that is not one of them. Does my hon. friend recommend it as a

good way to sin?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Okay. I take his word, of course. We are

also asking the House to give us discretionary authority to refuse other

provincial permits and licences while fines are outstanding. That is evidence

that we are deadly serious, Mr. Speaker, about collecting fines that are owed by

people to the court. There are other technical changes in

Part III but I think

that is the substance of it.

Part IV is identical to the corresponding provisions of the

Summary Proceedings Act.

Part V provides the Cabinet with authority to designate

ticketable offences and to fix the fines by regulations. The fine so fixed is

the only penalty the defendant is liable to bear in the absence of any mandatory

penalty. I want to make that point clear. I've already told the House why we ask

authority to bring these in by regulation.

Mr. Speaker, let me then come to the other point, the fines

for municipalities. Here there is more to it than the City of St. John's has

chosen to make public so let me make public the rest of the story. A couple of

years ago a member of the St. John's council - from recollection it was Mr.

Andrew Wells, the deputy mayor, a gentleman who is indefatigable in research and

is not always wrong. He is often right. He sometimes has an irritating manner

but I guess I'm not the one to complain about that. I've been known on occasion

to ruffle the odd feather here or there. Mr. Wells - I believe it was Mr. Wells

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to `Byrne Primus' that I've already

made the point he just made and as usual he is about five minutes late coming

into the party.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it was Mr. Wells. If I'm wrong he will

correct me. I hope he will. I don't think I've done him any grievous harm

because I'm about to pay him a compliment. Mr. Wells raised an issue as to

whether the City of St. John's is receiving the monies due to it under its

ticketing system. The City of St. John's, in common with many other

municipalities, has the authority to make by-laws that create ticketable

offences and penalties for breaching those by-laws. The parking by-laws are

perhaps the best known example.

In due course Mr. Wells, if it was Mr. Wells, raised it with

his colleagues on the council. June 19 the then-city clerk, Mr. Ryan - I believe

he has since gone on to other adventures - wrote to me as the Minister of

Justice to say: I am writing you at the direction of council in connection with

the above noted. The above noted is: Remuneration for city issued tickets. In

reviewing the issuance of traffic tickets by the city for the years 1990, 1991

and 1992, the dollar value of these tickets represent, and the actual

remuneration to the city from the Province, there is a large discrepancy which

exists. The following is a breakdown of traffic tickets issued and the expected

revenues for these three years, and what we were doing was, we were collecting

money on tickets and giving back the money less 10 per cent and in year one, he

figured we owed him - well I will give the total - they figured that over the

three-year period we owed the city $575,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was that the whole 10 per cent he was

looking for or just -

MR. ROBERTS: Oh no. He figured 107,108 tickets were

issued and the revenue value of those was $799,414. and the actual amount

received from the Province was $693,000 and add back the 10 per cent handling

fee, that's $69,300 for a total of $762, so he took $762 from $799,414, came up

with $37,414 and he said: you owe us that, and then in 1991 he got $131,000 and

in 1992 he got $406,000 for a total of $575,000.

Now, Mr. Ryan's methodology was a little flawed because he

apparently failed to take into account the fact that we are on a cash basis and

he was looking at tickets issued. I mean, if we send them $100, it might be from

a ticket from last year or from this year or from ten years ago but in any

event, I thought this was a fair comment, we should look into this and I wrote

him back and I said we will have a look at this. I told him I would pass it to

my Deputy Minister and she would be in touch with him in due course.

Well she, my Deputy Minister, got cracking on it and in due

course on the 1st of October, 1993 so it took a couple months to move this

through the system, June 19th and 1st October my deputy writes back and she

points out what has been going on and she ends up by saying: We are in the

process of reviewing the entire regime at traffic court including the methods

used and costs associated with collection efforts particularly as they apply to

small, dollar- value fines. Our objective is to achieve a more effective,

realistic, consistent and accountable system. Now, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that

every member of the House will endorse that.

Well, here is what we learned, Sir, when we got into it: The

City of St. John's imposes parking tickets at $5.00 each, and I can go through

these numbers in any detail I want but it was costing us $5.11 to process that

ticket, so if my friend from St. John's East was detected in a breach of a

parking regulation and a ticket was issued, he would have to pay $5.00 for his

transgression.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My friend from St. John's East says as he

frequently is. Good. It is going to cost him more I predict from here on in. So

he would pay his $5.00 and it would cost us $5.11 to collect that and we were

sending the city $4.50.

MR. SULLIVAN: I just wondered what cost (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry? One at a time. I will tell my

friend from Ferryland how we got to the number. My friend from St. John's East -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the minister's salary (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, the minister's salary is not in it. The

minister has little to do with traffic tickets except occasionally he gets a

parking ticket and he pays it by cheque.

These are '94-'95 figures as I have it. Traffic Court Budget

we add on the mail cost, we add on the prosecutor costs - we have a Crown

Attorney down there prosecuting these things - and we have total direct costs.

We factor in 2.5 per cent of the provincial court costs because that's roughly

what the traffic court consumes; we put in 55K for overheads, that came to $1.24

million, 242,000 tickets issued not all from the city and divide it, you get

$5.11

MR. SULLIVAN: So, you get (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. - so what we are doing, Mr. Speaker,

here is what we are going to be doing now, we are going to say to the city: we

will give you everything we collect less a five-dollar charge. Now, that's going

to cause them a problem if they leave their tickets at $5.00, and the other

night, the mayor and I ran into each other at a social occasion and he and I

have known each other for many, many years, and we had a spirited exchange over

the spirits in the spirit of Christmas, and I think we agreed to disagree but I

told him, I said: John, we are not going to go on spending $5.00 to collect a

ticket for $5 and send you the $5. We don't mind collecting the $5 ticket, but

we are going to keep the $5. He said: Well then, you've just ruined my budget. I

asked: What does this have to do with your budget? He said: Well, you are

raising taxes. I asked: What does it have to do with taxes? I don't think

parking tickets are taxes, I don't think they are revenue measures. I think

parking by-laws are designed to discourage people from parking illegally. My

answer was simple. I said: John, go ahead, increase your fees, increase your

tickets, we will give you a couple of months' grace, and we will.

It affects everybody in the Province who is in it. I've got a

list here if I can find it in the piles of paper. Let me just go through it now.

St. John's, the base year revenue is $1,085,000. We figure that the $5 per

ticket charge will cost it $412,000. Mount Pearl, $28,933, it will cost them

$3,264, Corner Brook, $52,524, $13,739. Grand Falls, $22,424, it will lose

$7,150. Gander $83,431, it will lose $9,715. Deer Lake, $3,944, it will lose

$750. Stephenville, $6,605, it will lose $3,370. All these municipalities are

going to have to come to grips with this issue. Paradise, $1,020. They were

getting nothing back. Carbonear, $132. Happy Valley, $130. My own constituents

will be affected. Labrador City, $90. These obviously aren't school buses left

outside in no parking zones, I say to my friend for ferryland. Harbour Grace,

$20.

We've had the losers, we now come to the winners. Memorial

will get $84,000 more under this system because we have not been giving anything

back to Memorial. The community colleges, we have $11,185. St. Clare's Hospital

got $11,365. The Miller Institute will get $1,080, The Grace will get $4,105.

The Waterford will get $10 more. Apparently there is very little overdue

parking. I will have to ask my friend the Minister of Health why the Waterford

produces so little parking ticket revenue. I understand two tickets. Carbonear,

$995, the James Paton $260, the Central Newfoundland Regional Hospital in Grand

Falls will get $3,630, and so on. The plan will work itself out. Provincial

revenues will increase somewhat and will go against the cost we have been

bearing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Hold on now, one at a time now. I say to my

friend for St. John's East Extern I do not have a number for Health Sciences. I

will attempt to get that for him but I don't know the answer to that. The same

principles would apply. My friend for Ferryland had a question, I think.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) percentage of revenues are

strictly provincial, excluding (inaudible)?

MR. ROBERTS: Of the tickets? I can't answer that because

I don't know how much we would - it will vary depending on how much we - the

percentage of revenue would be a meaningless thing in this context. In the year

I gave you we issued about 243,000 tickets to round it off to the nearest

thousand. If he takes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes. The number of tickets issued by the

city and so forth, you would have to work -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I don't have the number. One could work it

through. I assume it is available.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I don't know. I don't want to take a guess

because I don't know. But the impact will fall primarily on the City of St.

John's because it has by far the largest volume of tickets anywhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: You would have to ask the City, but if it

says it loses $300,000 a year - is that the number I've heard Mr. Murphy saying?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible). So call it $350,000 at $4.50

each and that will give you about 80,000 tickets as memory -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) 60,000, 70,000 (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Alright. So let's say 80,000, and out of

240,000 so about a third of the tickets processed by the St. John's Traffic

Court on that analysis would be (inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I assume so, yes. I'm giving raw ticket

figures. The point is, if they want to raise revenue by this they simply will

have to raise the - when they set the rate for the ticket they will have to

figure $5 for the processing, and then whatever they want by way it will go on

from there. I assume they have the authority to set these rates. We aren't

proposing to change whatever authority - I haven't looked at the municipalities

act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Now that is pretty well seat of the pants

work, but let's assume that about one-third of it are St. John's parking

tickets. Of course a ticket, being a ticket, has to be processed, and whether it

is a $200 ticket or a $5 ticket it is the same processing, so I suspect the

effect of this will be to require the council to increase their tickets, and

that doesn't trouble me particularly. If people don't want to pay that rate they

simply don't have to park unlawfully. Anybody can avoid paying a parking ticket

by following the parking regulations. It is really a very straightforward

proposition indeed, and it has nothing to do with city revenues. Ticket fines

are not revenues in the sense of taxes. It is money in the pocket, and I

understand it can be spent, and the city may say they are counting on it. Fine,

they can still count on it, but they should no longer expect the people in

Bonavista or Burin or Brigus or Baie Verte or anywhere else to subsidize the St.

John's City Council.

From now on we will use the system to collect the fines, and

we will hold on to $5 - we are giving an eleven cent subsidy there - to put

against the cost of the court, and 100 per cent of whatever is left will go to

the municipality or to the hospital or to the college, whoever has authority to

impose these ticket revenues, and we are not changing the people who have

authority. If they have it now they will continue to have it.

Mr. Speaker, that is, I think, at least enough on that. I may

have said more than members want on the bill. I believe it is a good bill. I

hope the House will agree and that we will be able to give it second reading and

move on. In any event, I move that it now be read a second time.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of my

colleague from Humber Valley I want to rise and have a few comments.

The minister is correct that for the most part this is a

positive step forward. I did want to raise a couple of questions, and again I

acknowledge that we have not had a great deal of time to be able to go over

this. Particularly in the absence of my colleague I have had even less time in

the last little while.

Mr. Speaker, the minister was speaking about municipal taxes,

and I am wondering if he would want to clarify the implications for municipal

taxation and the implications that this would have. As we know, municipalities

assessed property, or they have a poll tax, and they send out invoices to people

according to the procedures which the council will have in place, and in some

cases when people fail to pay those taxes the municipality will begin

proceedings against the property or against the individuals, if they are poll

taxes. I wanted to ask the minister - maybe he could clarify it - what the

implications would be under this particular piece of legislation. I heard him

say, or I believe he has said, that under this procedure when a municipality

would assess the taxation rate, and if the individual or the persons who are

supposed to pay the taxes don't do it then the municipality goes to court, and

if there is a judgement made in favour of the municipality then the enforcement

procedures will then come into place, and then there can be sanctions made and

there will be an enforcement regime put in. Would the minister want to clarify

that now?

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. member will yield.

MR. HODDER: Yes, I will yield.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker,

section 33.(2), which is on

page 20 of the bill if the hon. member wanted to turn to it.

Section 33.(1)

deals with fines payable to the provincial Crown.

Section 33.(2) says: Where an

enactment provides that a fine or late payment penalty imposed on conviction for

an offence enures to the benefit of a municipality, town, city, local service

district or community council and the conviction has not been entered as a

judgement under subsection (1), - in other words, which is not something coming

to the provincial Crown - an agent of the municipality, town, city, local

service district, et cetera, may enter the amount of the fine, together with an

applicable late payment penalty, payable by the convicted defendant for that

offence as a judgement under subsection (1).'

When you go back to subsection (1), it allows it to be

entered as a judgement of the trial division and the judgement is enforceable

against the convicted defendant in the same manner as if it were a judgement

rendered against the defendant in the court in a civil proceeding. Now I assume

members are fairly familiar with the methods available to enforce civil

judgements. They are very extensive; garnishment, seizing bank accounts, through

the Sheriff, seizure and sale of real property or personal property.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) 36?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, but 36 deals with fines payable to the

Crown and those are fines that come to the Province but 33(2) is the one that

deals specifically with municipalities. My friend the minister tells me that he

believes it is a very great weapon in the hands of municipalities trying to get

out there and collect the taxes due to them.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister. I say

to the minister that this has been a problem for municipalities for a long, long

time in that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has been saying to

municipalities: Would you go out and collect the taxes? They do take proceedings

in court to have their taxes collected and they do get judgements in favour of

the municipality. However, some people don't pay their taxes and -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Yes, so what has happened is that then the

lawyers for the municipality - of course they have already been in court once

and now it becomes a very lengthy procedure. At some point it becomes very

counter-productive both in terms of time and also in terms of expense. This I do

believe will simplify the matter and will be a very powerful asset for the

municipalities in terms of making it very simply understood in terms of

consequences. So when an individual or the holder of a piece of property or the

person who is supposed to pay the poll tax refuses to pay the poll tax then the

consequences for themselves in terms of their drivers license, in terms of other

actions that will follow as a consequence will be able to be accessed by the

municipality. That will, I do believe, simplify matters and will also help the

municipalities be able to put budgets in place that will draw, I guess, the

budget figures closer to the revenue figures. It will make sure that

municipalities are able to prepare sensible budgets and they won't have to carry

those great huge amounts of non-collectibles in terms of their debts.

However, Mr. Speaker, we do have some concerns. The concern

that we have, largely with the issue that the minister raised in the concluding

statements that he was making and that is with regard to the collection of

fines, the change from the present system and how it will impact on some

municipalities. At the moment, the City of St. John's has prepared its budget.

While the minister made - I should not say the word `light' but he did not take,

I think, great positive comments or commentary from the Mayor of St. John's when

he was dialoguing with him.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) he was not in favour of the

motion.

MR. HODDER: He was not in favour. The implications for

this change is $344,000 to the City of St. John's in the next year. That is

substantial and that means that somewhere the City of St. John's has to find

$344,000.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) provincial fines.

MR. HODDER: Well the alternative that St. John's has is

to (

a) stop giving tickets, which they won't do, they cannot do. To have an

orderly city they have to have sanctions in place for certain actions that

people take, whether it is parking, whether it is snow clearing or parking near

hydrants or whatever, they have to have some sanctions and the ticket system is

the most reliable one we have, so St. John's has to increase its ticket costs.

The penalties will have to be increased, and that means that ordinary citizens

who live in downtown St. John's, in particular, and who have very limited

parking at any time, these people are going to be very negatively effected.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. HODDER: Because if you increase the amount of the

ticket then-

MR. ROBERTS: They are parking unlawfully.

MR. HODDER: The law of probability is that some people

will do that, and some people at some time do not have any choice.

MR. ROBERTS: I know people who park unlawfully who say,

it is only five bucks, that's cheaper than going into the commercial parking

lots.

MR. HODDER: If people minimize the amount that is to be

paid then I have no sympathy with the fact if they increased it double the

amount.

MR. ROBERTS: The other issue is, should the people in

Bonavista, Ferryland or in Renews pay to subsidize the St. John's city council

tickets?

MR. HODDER: Well, my point to the minister would be, the

City of St. John's by law has to have its budget prepared as of today's date,

December 15th. The St. John's Act requires December 15th for the preparation of

the budget, however when the minister was doing his Budget in the estimates,

when he was looking at fines administration, he looked at revenues here in this

category and he said, $400,000 is listed in the justice estimates on Page 254 of

the estimates.

Now, in the very same way the City of St. John's in doing its

budget for the year will go and say, fines and revenue from fines, because there

is an offsetting thing. That is they have staff who are going out across the

city every day making sure the city is run in an orderly manner, so therefore

the city decides a scale of penalties chargeable for people who do not obey the

law. Some of them are relatively minor, parking on a meter that is expired is

going to cost you $5.00. I am not sure of the scale in St. John's, but if you

park near a hydrant it is going to cost you $25.00, and so on and so forth, the

scale will vary. Blocking snow clearing is going to cost you, I think $45.00. If

your vehicle is towed away you have to pay the fine, plus the tow away fee.

Now, in the St. John's budget they likewise do as the

minister has done in his budget. They put in the amount and they look at the

number of tickets which in the calendar year 1994 was 91,300, and something,

tickets. They then knew there was going to be a 10 per cent administration fee

charged by the Province for the collection. They look at the amount of revenue,

they deduct the 10 per cent administration fee, and they come up with the figure

which they put in the budget.

Now, this change here will mean that would change, and in

effect that will mean $344,000 will be kept by the Province. Money is going to

be going somewhere. If the same rates apply the amount will still be paid, so if

the City of St. John's is not getting $345,000 thereabouts therefore the

Province must be getting an extra $345,000, so in this particular way something

could happen. It means that the revenues that will be appearing in the

minister's estimates under the estimates for his department will correspondently

go up, but the revenues expected by the City of St. John's will correspondently

go down.

Now, there are two factors there, one is, who is going to pay

the money? The City of St. John's, if it increases its fines, it means that very

often it will be the people in downtown St. John's who (

a) have nowhere to park

and it is very difficult to avoid getting tickets, and in some cases you do not

have parking facilities, and very often these are people who just can't afford

to pay the $5.00, but they have to, that's the inconvenience of living in

certain parts of the City of St. John's.

If St. John's increases it to $10.00 or doubles the amount

whatever the amount is now, adds on the extra $5.00, it means that again it is

downloading. We have taken an amount of money, that you know, transferred it

from the Province, it has gone to the municipality, the municipality is going to

then have to take action to make sure that all of its fines are increased by

$5.00, so St. John's has to charge $5.00 for a ticket, say for an expired meter

plus an administration fee of $5.00 or $4.50 or whatever, because that would be

the amount if you change from the 10 per cent rate charge now to the straight

$5.00, this is going to have a negative impact on the people of St. John's and

for the most part on people who can't afford to pay.

Again, it is the people who already live in subsidized

housing who can't pay their light bills and phone bills and it is a very

negative impact on again, the poorest of the people who live in the capital

city, Mr. Speaker. However, the City of St. John's may not have any choice but

to transfer this down. Again we have a very positive piece of legislation but in

the implementation there is a substantive negative, and I ask the minister if he

will consider in the fines part, there is a clause there which - The clause

indicates that the minister may charge the $5.00 or he may decide that he would

charge some other amount.

It says here,

section 54, talks about the City of Corner

Brook amendment or section (2) talks about the City of Mount Pearl and the

clause says here: "Where a fine imposed under subsection (1) is for a ticketable

offence the council shall pay to the Province $5.00 of an amount that the

Minister of Justice may order for every ticket processed by the Province". I ask

the minister, in fairness to St. John's and the other municipalities, if he

would consider for the next year, the same system which we now have, as that

would be fair to everybody.

It would be fair to St. John's and it would mean that their

budget would be intact, you know, to put this in the context of already having

had to absorb a 22 per cent change in the municipal operating grants, and so we

are looking at a total picture here and, Mr. Speaker, if the minister would

consider not charging the $5.00 per ticket for calendar year 1996, but that he

would defer the implementation maybe for a reasonable length of time, but that

for 1996, if he were to use the same process that is there now, the 10 per cent,

at least that would give the City of St. John's and other municipalities a

chance to be able to live within their budgets, and I say to the members

opposite, that in the case of the City of St. John's they have tried their best

this year, as every other municipality, not to pass on these costs, the extra

losses in revenue that have occurred because of the changes in the MOG to the

taxpayers. However, at some point or another, somebody has to find the money to

balance the budget and I do not believe that it is reasonable to expect St.

John's to be able to find an extra $345,000 at this stage. The budget is

finished. It has been prepared today, and has already been passed by the

council, last Tuesday, in fact, and upping the fines will not fix it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: That is right, while we suspect that will not

happen, that people will still have to pay fines.

Mr. Speaker, on some of the other provisions here, again the

university will be positively affected. They will pick up an extra $84,000;

however, that is really only just a transfer because the university's funds come

totally from the Province, so therefore it just means that there is an entry

into a ledger, because before this bill was introduced the Province, of course,

was collecting all of that money and it was keeping it, and the same thing for

the hospitals and other boards, and to the extent that these other institutions

will get extra revenue, that is a positive feature; however, again I repeat and

I might note as well that, in the case of the City of Mount Pearl the negative

impact would be about $5,000, but again the City of Mount Pearl has the same

problem that St. John's has; the budget has been gone over by all the council

members, and finding $5,000 is not impossible but it is not easy either.

With these comments, very positive toward the implications

for the collection of municipal taxes and that new structure there, because that

has been something that has been talked about by the Federation of

Municipalities for a long time, that is a positive feature; however, be very

concerned about changing the rules in midstream, particularly after city budgets

have already been prepared.

Also, I should note here that there was not any consultation

with the municipalities affected or with the federation itself, and these kinds

of changes should have a consultation process. There has been no consultation

and the bill, again, being submitted just a few days ago and now up for debate

today means that there has been a lot of scrambling to try to find out the kind

of implications you would have, particularly as it affects St. John's and the

major municipalities.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few

remarks.

I wish the minister were here, because one of the problems

that we are having in the City of St. John's has to do with landlords, and as I

read the bill I am not sure if I am correct here. Right now if an electrical

inspector goes around and visits a premises and finds that there is some danger

there with respect to a hanging wire, the landlord can be charged and brought to

court, and eventually his fine can be up to $5,000. Remember we brought this

through the House, recently, and there are quite a number of offences out there

and it is kind of difficult to process them. Would this now mean that the

electrical inspector and the other inspectors who go around for the city can

ticket the landlord with the minimum fine on it or whatever, and then let the

landlord take it to court if he wants to protest it? This would certainly

alleviate some of the problems that we are having in St. John's with landlords

and other people who are not keeping their properties up to scratch. When the

minister comes back perhaps he will address this question. Otherwise I will

bring it up again at second reading.

The other question, what has been introduced here seems to me

to be a new concept in justice. It has to do with user-pay for justice. I'm just

wondering if we are going to extend this principle to all the others who use the

justice system. Will single-mothers now who are trying to collect their spousal

support, will they have to be charged for the law enforcement procedures of that

group over in Corner Brook who pursue the spouse with the money? Will they then

be deducted the cost of collections? Is this a new principle that we are

bringing in here? Have we really thought this thing through, or does it just

apply to user-pay for municipalities on the collection of their taxes? I think

it is a new concept in justice. I'm wondering if the Minister of Justice when he

concludes second reading would respond to this point.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a number of

remarks on the legislation before the House, Bill No. 47,

An Act Respecting

Provincial Offences, now before the House at second reading.

It is a complex act. It has some new provisions in it and

some old ones having to do with the

Summary Proceedings Act. There are a number

of new concepts introduced as the Member for St. John's Centre has pointed out;

and the Member for Waterford - Kenmount has also raised the concerns about how

this affects the revenues of, in particular the City of St. John's, but also the

City of Corner Brook and others.

Before I get to that I want to talk about a general concept

of justice which I think it is time that we in this Province bring about a

change to. That is the practice and the procedure that is contained in this act

of putting people in jail who cannot pay a fine. I too wish the Minister of

Justice were sitting here in this House right now, because I want to ask members

opposite to endorse the concept that people should not be put in jail because

they are unable to pay a fine.

I got a call yesterday from someone who was put in jail this

week because he couldn't pay a $125 fine which was imposed on him for failing to

pay a $70 school tax in 1986. This person was put in jail earlier this week

because he was unable to pay this fine. This man is a forty-eight year old man

who is a day care patient at St. Clare's because he has certain medical

problems.

MR. REID: Now he is going to pay you $1,000 to get him

off (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The cynical Member for Carbonear over there

doesn't want to talk about justice, he wants to talk about bull! Absolute

garbage and bull! Mr. Speaker, a constituent of mine was put in jail this week

because he couldn't pay a $125 fine which is imposed by a court because he

didn't pay, allegedly, a $70 school tax in 1986! I consider that to be a serious

matter of justice, and it has nothing to do whatsoever with the kind of bull

that the Member for Carbonear is getting on with. If the Member for Carbonear,

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, wants to get on with that kind

of bull let him get up in the House and say something about it. But this is a

constituent of mine who called me as a member of this House -

MR. EFFORD: What did you do for him?

MR. REID: And did you charge him?

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the Member for Carbonear

ought to be restrained because he is going to provoke a breach of the peace, not

just a breach of the decorum of this House. We have had an example in the last

twenty-four hours where the kind of provocation and abuse of this House that has

been going on by members opposite has led to a national incident involving the

members of this House.

I would ask the Member for Carbonear to restrain himself and

pay attention to issues of justice when they are brought before this House. If

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs thinks it is right that someone

has to go to jail -

MR. REID: Yes, I do think it is right! Nothing wrong with

it.

MR. HARRIS: - because they can't afford to pay a fine,

well, then, I don't believe in the same system of justice as the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs does. A law for the minister, on his salary, to

pay a fine, if he can afford it, and someone else to go to jail because they

can't, is not just. It's not just!

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a problem that I think ought to be

addressed, and it can be addressed in this act. I think it is time, Mr. Speaker,

that provincial offenses that provide for the imposition of fine should remove

from the provincial court the power to impose a sentence of jail in default of

payment of a fine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: All of these - Mr. Speaker, I wonder if

members can be asked to be quiet so that I can try to make a point.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has asked to be heard in silence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs is not prepared to let me be heard in silence.

I wonder if you could ask him to restrain himself and try not to provoke

disorder in the House.

I think it is time that this House acknowledged the injustice

of putting people in jail because they can't afford to pay a fine. All of these

ticketable offences can have a provision for imprisonment in default of payment

of a fine. That can go from a $10 ticket to a $50 ticket or a $100 fine. And the

circumstances can arise, as in the example that I gave to the House this

morning, where this individual was approached by two police officers last week

and asked to pay the $125 fine. And they gave him a couple of days. They were

very good. They said: We have authorization to take you away and lock you up for

ten days for non-payment of fine, but we will give you a couple of days and see

if you can round it up.

He had a very serious problem. He didn't have any money. In

fact, he wasn't even aware he had gotten the fine. And the $70 school tax which

he allegedly hadn't paid, in fact, when he receiv