December 14, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 61

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before the Chair calls the routine business, I would like to welcome to

the Speaker's gallery today, His Excellency Bienvenido Garcia Negrin, Ambassador of Cuba

to Canada, along with Mr. David Dempster, the Chief of Protocol.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I want to welcome to the gallery 100 senior

high Canadian Issues students, from the Queen Elizabeth Regional High School. They are

accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Trevor Rowe and Mr. Murray Park.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to update my hon. colleagues on

the developing trade relationship between Newfoundland and Labrador and Cuba. I, too,

would like to recognize His Excellency in the Speaker's gallery.

The Ambassador will be visiting Newfoundland and Labrador for the next

two days. During the visit, we will meet to discuss our growing trade relationship.

I recently participated in a mission to Cuba to attend the Havana

International Trade Fair. The mission was organized by the Gander and Area Chamber of

Commerce, and attended by companies and organizations from Newfoundland and Labrador.

Design Management Group, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Newfoundland Styro, Terra

Nova Trading and NewTel Enterprises participated in the Chamber of Commerce initiative.

Several other companies travelled to Cuba on their own initiative, namely Urecon Limited,

Stratos Mobile Networks, and Nautical Data International.

Mr. Speaker, this was an excellent opportunity to develop our export

market in Cuba. It was also a positive follow-up mission for the Gander and Area Chamber

of Commerce, which organized a similar mission last year.

There was considerable interest generated in the Newfoundland and

Labrador companies that attended the trade fair, one of the largest of its kind in the

world.

As my honourable colleagues realize, increasing our export base is a

key to developing a strong economy in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The mission to Cuba provided yet another opportunity to promote our

Province at an international venue. It was a chance for Newfoundland and Labrador

companies to showcase their ability to provide quality products and services.

During the mission, a memorandum of understanding was signed between

the Gander and Area Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Commerce of Cuba. This is an

important agreement which will provide Newfoundland and Labrador with access to the

business community in Cuba. The MOU will enable both sides to share very relevant and

important information.

During the visit I met with Ricardo Cabrisas, Minister of Foreign

Trade, and Vice Ministers of the Departments of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Agriculture and

Forestry, Public Health, Foreign Investment and Economic Cooperation and Basic Industry. I

also had several meetings with Canadian Ambassador Keith Christie to discuss opportunities

for Newfoundland and Labrador.

There were positive indications from both the Cuban officials and the

businesses that they would be planning visits to Newfoundland and Labrador to follow up on

business opportunities.

There are also a number of other companies that have successfully

broken into the Cuban market. Seacom Consulting Inc. in St. John's has been exploring this

market for the past year.

They travelled to Cuba in November, and signed a deal with a Cuban

government enterprise to provide environmental and emergency response software. The

company will also offer consulting services for the oil and the gas industry, as well as

drilling operations and training in this field. This deal will include similar contracts

in Mexico, Columbia, Argentina and Spain.

Clearly, Seacom was able to work the Cuban relationship to launch their

business in Latin America.

While in Cuba, Seacom was invited by a Cuban ministry to put together a

contingency of environmentally technology-based companies from Newfoundland and Labrador

to travel to Cuba for technology transfer sessions.

These are very positive developments that show there are indeed

opportunities available in the Cuban market.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of the Gander and

Area Chamber of Commerce for recognizing an opportunity and moving to capitalize on it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the Ambassador of Cuba. I would like to say that we indeed in

this Province have many companies with expertise in many fields, and hopefully they will

gain entrance into the Cuban marketplace.

I would say, however, that as we export from this Province we would

like to see the export of finished products more so than the export of raw materials. In

order to sustain a vibrant economy here in this Province, and to create employment in this

Province, and to stop the out-migration of people from this Province, we have to start

concentrating more on the finished product than the raw resource.

We have many companies in this Province, Mr. Ambassador, and I am sure

that they will have valuable trade experiences with companies from your country. I hope

that trade experience will be mutual for both companies.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to join with the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology in welcoming Ambassador Garcia to the House of Assembly. It is a sign of the

growing friendship between the Cuban people and the Canadian people and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that he is here.

The examples that the minister has given of Newfoundland business

operations which have something to offer to the people of Cuba is a good sign of future

friendship and work that we can do together. There is much we have to offer to the Cuban

people, and much the Cuban people have to offer us. I hope that this relationship develops

and continues and, in fact, could be expanded to other Caribbean nations, and our former

trading partners in the salt fish trade could also be involved in this development of our

international trade.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This morning the Premier and I had the opportunity to join my federal

counterpart, Transport Minister David Collenette, and Veterans Affairs Minister Fred

Mifflin, for the official transfer of the St. John's Airport to the St. John's

International Airport Authority.

Today's transfer is part of the federal government's National Airport

Policy announced in July of 1994. It provides local interest with the opportunity to

assume ownership of regional and local airports or to operate the national airports such

as St. John's.

We congratulate Chairman Rex Ledrew and the board members for their

efforts, and we wish them future success in the operation of the St. John's International

Airport.

St. John's is the fourth airport to be transferred in the Province.

Other airports that have already been turned over to a local authority include

Stephenville, Goose Bay and, just last week, Deer Lake.

These transfers will place more autonomy in the hands of local

authorities so that they can be more creative and more competitive regarding the daily

operations of the airport as a business. Users of the airport will soon see modernization

and improvements taking place at the airport as a result of an approximately $30 million

redesign project that was marked by today's ceremony.

Today, I also jointly announced with Minister Collenette, eighteen new

highway improvement projects worth $54 million for the Province under existing

Canada-Newfoundland highway initiative. This year's initiative will create 900 direct and

indirect jobs and will provide contractors with the benefit of early tendering for the

coming year. These projects are part of the Newfoundland Transportation Initiative

Agreement signed by the federal and provincial governments in 1988.

These projects are important and as part of the overall strategy by

both the provincial and federal governments to improve transportation infrastructure in

the Province.

Today's announcement was the first of three major road construction

programs for the Province. We will soon have an announcement for work associated with

continuation of the Trans-Labrador Highway, followed by the provincial roads program,

which will be announced as part of the provincial budget for the coming year.

With $118 million spent on road construction in the Province, this year

marked our busiest year ever. Today's announcement, coupled with other major projects to

come, provides strong evidence that trend will continue again next year.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the minister

for a copy of his statement before the House sat today. I appreciate it.

I would also like to wish Mr. Ledrew and his Committee Board Members

well and every success in the future, and hopefully we will see some improvements in the

airport and the services at the airport. Also, the $30 million to be spent obviously will

create a few jobs. The minister must be learning something. He is kind of making it hard

for me to criticize him here, but I did find something.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Roads for Rail Agreement and

the work that is going to be spent in the Province on the roads in 1999, it is good to see

that the work is being put out early. Not put out, but at least announced earlier in the

year to give people time to set up and get ready for it. Also, I would expect that the

minister, each night when he goes to bed, says his prayers and thanks former Minister

Crosbie and the federal government and the former premier Peckford for the Roads for Rail

Agreement for the money that is going through each year in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: He sincerely thanks them, I would think, Mr. Speaker.

Good news here today, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

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

he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not here to celebrate the

transfer of the responsibility to the St. John's International Airport Authority. As the

Premier well knows, local autonomy, even in areas of health care, is not always the answer

if the dollars are not available to do a proper job.

Thirty million dollars to re-design the airport is long overdue. This

the money that is coming now really just a sweetener to the sloughing off of federal

responsibility for airport management. It remains to be seen how secure the jobs of the

people working there at the airport, good federal jobs, will be after the new Airport

Authority get a few years under its belt.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just have one question for

the Premier today. It is with respect to events that took place in the House last week.

The Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women have written the

Member for St. John's West outlining their concern and their disgust of what took place in

the House last week, and they have indicated in their letter that have sent correspondence

to the Premier as well, indicating that the response from government to date has been

inadequate. In the letter to the Premier, which I have as well, they have outlined the

same concerns and are looking for a response. I wonder if the Premier today has any

response to the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women with respect to what

events took place here last week.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition

for his question. I am happy to have this first opportunity back in the House, having been

on road last week, to indicate on behalf of all of the member of the government - and I

know I speak on behalf of all of the Members of the House - in saying that the comments

attributed to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs last week were unacceptable

and were hurtful to the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I share in the views expressed by the Minister Responsible for the

Status of Women in saying that these comments have no place in the Legislature of the

House of Assembly, and I share as well in her view that the apology offered last week by

the minister was sincere and heartfelt. It is time now, in that circumstance, for the

public policy of the Province to resume in this place.

I took the time this morning to call the President of the Status of

Women, Ms Joyce Hancock, to share with her my sense of disappointment and anger, quite

frankly, last week of the comments that were issued by the minister, and to share with her

my conviction that the minister has sincerely apologized for those remarks. Ms Hancock

will have to speak for herself, but she accepted the position I have now taken.

When I came into the House I took the trouble as well to indicate to

the Member for St. John's West formally on behalf of this government my apology, on behalf

of government, for the remarks that were directed towards her and, through her, to women

generally in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am proud to be in this Legislature at a time when the people of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador have elected more women than at any other time in

our history. I am proud to lead a party that has more women as part of its caucus and part

of its Cabinet than at any other time in our history. I am proud to acknowledge the

presence of women on the other side of the House, both in the Official Opposition and as

an Independent member.

This government, and indeed I believe this Legislature, is committed to

seeing the full participation by women in every role, in every area of responsibility in

our society. To the extent that the comments of a member of the Cabinet has been

regressive in that regard, he has apologized and by extension, Mr. Speaker, to the extent

that the cause which has been pursued so genuinely by so many has been hindered, I

apologize.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community

Services. In a recent edition of the Canadian Emergency News the Newfoundland

government is lambasted over its ambulance service. Our system in that

article is

described as the most backward, disorganized, and ill-managed emergency medical service in

the Western world. We are described as "[v]irtually the only jurisdiction in the

Industrial World to remain without any EMS (i.e., ambulance) legislation."

I quote: "...the Newfoundland Government, in their own medical

ignorance... has taken virtually every ill-informed step imaginable to avoid accepting or

exercising responsibility for their citizens in prehospital medical emergencies."

The

article states that the lack of a province-wide standard of

emergency medical service "makes it perilous to be a resident and a major deterrent

from being a visitor" -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the fact that the minister is accused of being remiss in

failing to take the time to make the effort to see the problem and to stand firm in

directing a resolution, I ask the minister: What has she done as minister over the past

year and a half to allow rural Newfoundland adequate access to emergency medical services

as a result of a centralization of hospitals here, and the closing down of ones in rural

areas of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Services.

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

Over the last year and a half we have been quite busy doing a number of

initiatives, as a government, particularly looking at how we deliver services. We have

done a line by line budget analysis of all of our institutional boards. We have put our

Strategic Social Plan in place. We have released child welfare legislation, the first one

in fifty-four years, and the member also knows that we have done extensive research, and

have now finished a report on the ambulance services in this Province. We do have a number

of issues that need to be addressed. We have a number of issues that have been brought to

our attention, both on the service itself and on the ability of the boards to deliver

those services as opposed to private and community operators. We are looking at the whole

operation.

Yes, we do have to make some changes, Mr. Speaker. That is why we did

the report. We involved all of the parties, including the institutional boards, so that

they could look at the ambulance operators and how they are providing the service. We will

be making that information available to all of the parties, and we will also be making the

decisions we believe we are able to make, not only with respect to our financial ability,

but also in maintaining adequate services for the Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister must be speaking on behalf of a different province than

the one I am living in. Minister, you are shutting down rural Newfoundland and Labrador,

that is what you are doing. You are crucifying people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador

who need emergency medical service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You recanted on the commitment you gave to increase

the grants to private ambulance operators by $7,000, and $3,000 to community ambulance

operators. You promised in a letter over three months ago that you would do a complete

review and an action plan within sixty days.

I ask the minister: Where is that sixty-day review and action plan you

promised over ninety days ago?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Services.

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

The report is completed, and it was completed within the sixty days. We

are in a process, as we committed to the people involved that we would meet with them and

go through the final recommendations before I would bring those recommendations forward to

my colleagues and to Cabinet for a decision on how we go forward from here.

The report is completed, and we are meeting with the various groups

responsible. We would prefer to deal with the people who are delivering the service than

deal in here through the media and through the public again until we have a chance to make

the proper decisions with the people who are delivering the services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Further, I would also like to say that I do not

know where the member is getting his information. We have not made any decision to reduce

any grants. It is another clear example of his famous fearmongering. I would say that if

you really want to fearmonger, and if the member opposite feels obliged and compelled to

fearmonger, he should at least wait until the decisions are made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister does not hear very well. I did not accuse her of cutting

grants. I accused her of not delivering on a letter I read from your department of giving

$7,000 and $3,000 respectively.

Minister, your department is using strong-arm tactics on ambulance

operators here by not paying invoices that go back as far as three months ago. The

government's own financial audit - they allowed you to go in and do an audit by government

auditors - reveals that many operators are at the point of going bankrupt. Why are you

pushing them over the brink by breaking your own department policies, by not paying

invoices within thirty days?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member opposite to

refer back to Hansard when he asked the same questions - the last session and the session

before.

When you do a review, you have to look at it. I also have to point out

that some areas in this Province with ambulance services have four to five times the usage

rate as other areas in the Province. There are questions that need to be asked. Some of

them are very close to hospitals, and some of them are not very close to hospitals. The

member, I am sure, is aware of some of the very regions to which I refer.

I will say that the information has been gathered. With respect to the

financial analysis that we did earlier in the year, I have made it very clear in this

House and in other places, we are not going to release the personal, privileged

information of some of the operators. We will deal with the information in making our

decisions and we will work with the people involved. That is what we are planning to do.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. She has not refuted that we

have the worst ambulance service in the Western world.

Your government promised, when they shut down rural Newfoundland's

hospitals, that they would increase centralization and provide better service in more

centralized areas, and you promised to maintain emergency ambulance service in those

areas.

I ask you now, Minister: Why have you reneged on your promise? Why are

you turning your backs on rural Newfoundland and forgetting centralization, and now

pulling the rug out from under them by taking away proper ambulance service?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Services.

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

I stand here proudly today and say that I am not crucifying rural

Newfoundland. In fact, this government has made greater commitments to rural Newfoundland

with respect to building new facilities and providing services. We never, ever agreed to

centralize. We agreed to regionalize. The member should look back at what we are doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, it is not about transition. It is about not

accepting what is happening out there. We are very committed to how we deliver service.

Every day in this House he will stand up and say: Give more money for ambulances, give

more money for doctors, give more money for drugs, give more money for facilities, but

when you are in government you choose. You have to govern and you have to choose. We will

make the best decisions based on the best information we have, and we will continue to do

that.

It is easy to stand up and say, give money everywhere. We do not have

that luxury. We recognize the financial situation we are in, and we will make the best

decisions we can with the money we have - every time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

I ask the minister if his office receives regular activity reports of

foreign fishing in NAFO area 3L, 3M, 3No, on the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks and

on the Flemish Cap?

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

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, there is significant foreign fishing activity presently

occurring in NAFO regulatory areas 3L, 3M, and 3No. The minister must certainly be aware

of this. The main species being fished is Greenland halibut and red fish. I ask the

minister if he has made any recent representation to his federal cousins in Ottawa

regarding the recent increase in this foreign fishing activity?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, there is not a meeting goes by... Any time

I have the opportunity to talk with officials here in St. John's from DFO, or the

minister's office here in St. John's, or when I have the opportunity to talk to the

minister in Ottawa, we always talk about the fishing activity inside and outside the

200-mile limit.

All fishing activity is a concern to the Province as well as to Canada

and DFO as a whole, and we have a concern of what is happening. There is a continual

consultation process taking place about those activities. We know for a fact there are

twenty-seven vessels, as of December 1, fishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

That is an increase of only six vessels from last year at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, he must have his figures

wrong. I say to the minister, there was an increase of 25 per cent in the week ending

November 30 with foreign fishing activity in NAFO area 3L, 3M, 3No. That is not including

the foreign vessels fishing shrimp. I ask the minister not only if he is aware of this

increased fishing activity but more importantly what he, as the provincial Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture, intends to do about it?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, an increase of 25 per cent is six boats. I

don't know what the hon. member is trying to do. Last year, as of December 1: Spanish

boats, 23; Portugal, 2; Russia, 2; Japanese, 1; Far East, 1; and non-contracting parties,

1. That was six more than last year. Now you can say six is 25 per cent of twenty-four, or

it is six boats. Whichever way you take it, it is six boats; and whether it is twenty

boats or thirty boats, they catch the same quota. There are quotas assigned and there were

85 per cent less infractions on the Grand Banks this year than the previous year, with the

observer coverage aboard the boats.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, in the week ending November 30, there

were thirty vessels fishing in area 3L, 3M, 3No. The minister stands up and says it is

only six vessels. I ask the minister if he considers a 25 per cent increase acceptable?

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

MR. EFFORD: When I went to school in Port de Grave, twenty-four and

six were thirty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the minister is

very simple: If he considers a 25 per cent increase of foreign activity on the Nose and

Tail of the Grand Banks, by foreign fishing, acceptable today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the question he asked me was very simple;

twenty-four and six is thirty.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the

Minister of Environment and Labour.

Minister, is it fair to say that at present government's position

regarding water export, based on comments that you have made, is that when the federal

government develops a policy on bulk export of water that this Province will mirror that

policy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question was asked to me of the member some time ago, last week I

think it was, or the week before. Basically what I said to him at that particular time was

that the federal government is presently reassessing and re-evaluating its export policy

of water in bulk form. We will wait and see what the outcome of that proposal will be, and

at that time will decide here if we want to mirror our legislation after that.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's

South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker: I will not allow any large water

exports to take place as long as I am Prime Minister.

Minister, that is a statement from the Prime Minister of Canada. The

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade said: The Government of

Canada does not support bulk shipment of water.

That was a quote from Hansard from the House of Commons for Wednesday,

December 9, just last week. The Minister of Environment in the House of Commons, on the

same day, was quoted as saying -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Based on the comment of the Minister of Environment - This government

is very concerned about the export of bulk water from this country. We do not want a

wholesale export of bulk water. - I ask the minister: Wouldn't you agree that Ottawa has a

firm policy in place on bulk export? When are you going to put in a strong policy for this

Province, and ban the export of bulk water?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just said to the hon. member a few minutes ago that the federal

government is presently assessing its policy on bulk water. Until that decision is made,

our decision remains as I said in the House last week.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's

South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I think Ottawa's policy is pretty

strong, based on the comments in the House of Commons last week. I ask the minister, based

on the fact that the federal government says there could be very serious implications

under NAFTA, and based on the fact that they have made very strong policy statements in

the House of Commons last week, I ask the minister to reconsider and put in place now a

ban on the bulk export of water before it is too late.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One minister's statement in a Cabinet does not make a policy on behalf

of the government. The federal government is presently assessing its policy, and when they

do then obviously we will act accordingly.

I want to say to the hon. member that the federal government is

presently assessing that policy. It is a trade policy, and they will have the final say.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the

Minister of Government Services and Lands.

Minister, I have had the occasion to read the Sea Forest Quay

Development proposal for the Cupids area. To proceed will require privately owned land,

maybe the acquisition of upwards from fifteen land owners in the area. Will the minister

tell the House if representatives of his department have done an investigation on the

privately owned land in the area? And could he give us the results of that investigation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and

Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. speaker.

On the Cupids proposal, at the present time the department has taken

that proposal and is dealing with it as it would deal with any proposal that is brought to

government, and the assessment forms are being put out to the different agencies as

required. Once those assessments are done, the department will then make a decision as to

where to go with that application.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Minister, will you confirm that there has been a

discussion paper prepared for Cabinet to investigate methods to seize privately owned land

and turn it over to another private group?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and

Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure where the hon. member is getting his questions. What we

have done is, we have accepted an application from the Cupids Development Corporation for

this particular project. Right now, the application is in the process of being farmed out

to the assessment agencies and departments that are required to deal with the application.

Until we get those back, we have no recourse but to sit and wait until we can determine

what to do with that application. We do not do anything until we get the assessments back,

and right now we are in the middle of that process.

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

Francis.

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

I have had conversations with a number of people in the area with

respect to this whole project. Will the minister confirm that there are pressure tactics

being used by government on private property owners in the area? That the Department of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and

Crown Lands, are using extraordinary measures, such as stop work orders on individuals in

the area, and being extended for sixty days beyond the term that they had for a stop work

order? That the quieting of titles legislation is been used to require people to do

quieting of titles of their own land in the area, and it is going to cost them thousand of

dollars; and that the Department of Works, Services and Transportation is out there

measuring up land to try and show that the people do not own land in the area. Will the

minister confirm that this is happening? Is government using these tactics to try and pave

the way for (inaudible) people in the area - to make money basically?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and

Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. member that this

application is in the process of being assessed by the outside agencies.

There is no extraordinary action being taken against anybody in this

particular area. Right now we are dealing with it as an application we get from a

development corporation. When we are finished that assessment, we will deal with the

application from then on.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question are to the

Minister of Education.

About two months ago the Avalon East School Board had projected a

deficit of $450,000 or $460,000. A week or so ago, they were talking about a deficit of $1

million. My latest information is that the deficit could be $1.2 million. I want to ask

the minister what steps he is taking to assure the parents, the teachers, and the school

board, that there will be no threat to instructional programs and support staff

allocations in the Avalon East School Board as a consequence of this deficit?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is nice today to see members opposite, in the Official Opposition,

finally associating themselves with the former Progressive Conservative Administration in

the Province, and with Premier Peckford, and people of that nature, who had a history over

some seventeen-years of running the Province to the brink of absolute and total collapse

and bankruptcy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Any other time there has been an issue raised where we

have taken the occasion to suggest that some of the things that are happening in the

Province today were actually put in place by a previous Adminstration that they supported,

their normal answer is: We weren't here. Don't blame us. Don't talk to us about Peckford;

he is living in British Columbia - and things of that nature.

The notion with respect to the school board and financing is that we

are not aware at this point in time -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: We were not aware at this point in time that there is

any deficit with the school board in Avalon East. We have heard some media reports that I

am sure the hon. member is now asking about. We have invited representatives of the school

board to come and have a meeting with us and talk about the nature and extent of any

difficulties they might be having.

The Avalon East School Board - the biggest school board in the

Province, representing over one-third of the students in the whole of Newfoundland and

Labrador - has a budget, for the purposes that the hon. member asked us about, of $23

million. They have total flexibility to handle the different components of that $23

million in a wide variety of ways. They are not restricted in terms of the categories that

we give them the money for. We are looking forward to having a meeting with them to see if

they in fact have a problem of the nature that the hon. member suggests.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford

Valley.

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

The minister knows that part of the problem in the Avalon East School

Board, as is the problem in School District No. 4, is that Treasury Board negotiated new

contracts for unionized employees some months ago and the school boards are still waiting

for these funds to be transferred to their accounts.

I want to ask the minister: Why are you dragging your heels? You have

negotiated the 2 per cent increase. The money is not being transferred to the school board

accounts, and this is part of the problem the school boards are having with their cash

flow. When will you see to it that this money that was negotiated by your colleague to

your left there is going to transfer that money to the school boards so they can pay their

employees without having to draw on money that was allocated for something else?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again I am surprised that the normal approach taken by the Opposition

did not follow through on that question, because what we have witnessed in the House in

the last couple of weeks is that if any group - no matter what the purpose - mentions

anything about money, for any reason, the position of the Official Opposition is: Give

them the money.

Mr. Speaker, that is what ran the Province into bankruptcy for

seventeen years, to the point. We have had questions here in the Legislature asking us to

put over $1 million back into the health care system. We have had repeated questions every

day on every issue. We have had issues from the hon. member that totalled over $50 million

in looking at monies they want to give to the school boards. Maybe some of it for good

reason; but they hear a news report and their normal response is: Give them the money. Do

not check any further than that.

We had the hon. Member for St. John's East last week basically up

lobbing on behalf of a group of people, saying to the Minister of Finance: No matter what

the consequences, just give them the money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: That is the approach we saw for years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stood up and in the first

question suggested, based on some media report and so on because we have not had a meeting

with the school board yet, that they might have a deficit or a debt problem. Then he

stands up and talks about a cash flow issue. A cash flow issue is not necessarily in any

way shape or form linked to a deficit or a debt. We all handle cash flow from day to day,

and if the school board has a cash flow problem maybe that is what they will talk to us

about in the meeting that we will have in the next few weeks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister take his seat.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley, time for one quick question

and a very quick answer.

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

The Avalon East School Board has closed two schools that are directly

involved in negotiations between the church authorities and the government. Yet, they must

continue to operate those schools in terms of heating and basic essentials.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: I ask the minister: Will these school boards be

compensated for the costs they are still incurring even though they are not using these

schools, when the church and the government finally gets around to making a settlement on

the ownership of property?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, two years ago in the budget the government gave a commitment

that all of the school boards of the Province - not only Avalon East but all of the school

boards of the Province - would continue to be funded for operational purposes on the same

basis as they were two years ago. There were no reductions last year, there have been no

reductions this year, so whether or not the school is open or closed makes no difference

in terms of their budget. They get the money to run the school in any event. That is the

commitment the government gave them.

The point I guess that the hon. member is trying to get at is the

sooner they can dispose of the property and rid themselves of the operational cost of

maintaining the building, the more money they will have to use in other buildings in other

schools to improve the educational lot of their students; but there is absolutely - and

should be - no suggestion that the government is in any way penalizing or handcuffing this

board because we have given them the money to run those school as if they were full of

students.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask that the hon. Minister to take his seat.

Question Period has ended.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we will meet with the school board in the

next little while and see if there is any substance to any of these issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that on tomorrow I ask leave to introduce the following

private member's resolution:

Province approximately $150 million less under the Canada Health and Social Transfer

(CHST) than we received under the former Established Program Financing (EPF) and Canada

Assistance Plan (CAP) programs, even though the need for funding on an annual basis has

been increasing; and

WHEREAS these federal transfer cuts have had major consequences for

Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly for our health care, post-secondary education and

social assistance programs; and

account surplus situation and has the financial means to restore to provinces the funding

it has cut from transfers for health care, post-secondary education and social assistance

programs;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the Government of

Canada to move immediately to restore all of the funding it has cut from transfer payments

to Newfoundland and Labrador and to maintain funding in future at levels reflective of the

annual increases in the costs of providing programs and services in health care,

post-secondary education and social assistance.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce the following motion:

WHEREAS the provincial government has had in its hands, for more than a

year, the report of the Statutory Review Commission on the Workers' Compensation system;

and

WHEREAS the Commission laid out, in its report, numerous far-reaching

recommendations for substantially improving the system to better serve workers, employers

and the public generally; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has moved to implement only a few of

the report's recommendations, ignoring or significantly delaying others; and

WHEREAS sound recommendations benefit no one if they are left on the

shelf to gather dust;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this hon. House express to the provincial

government its desire that the government move more expeditiously to implement all of the

sound recommendations of the Statutory Review Commission on the Workers' Compensation

system.

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the

following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the nonpartisan House of Assembly Select Committee on

Children's Interests, after thorough investigation and careful consideration of the best

way to protect vulnerable children in Newfoundland and Labrador, has recommended that the

provincial government establish an Office of the Child Advocate; and

WHEREAS as the Select Committee determined there is in Newfoundland and

Labrador today no office equivalent to an independent, Legislature-appointed Office of the

Child Advocate empowered with special authority and resources to intervene on behalf of

children and to make regular specific recommendations for actions to better respond to

children's special needs; and

WHEREAS vulnerable children in many other jurisdictions - including six

other provinces - are now realizing the benefits of a child advocate; and children in this

Province are no less vulnerable, no less important and no less deserving of protection

than children elsewhere; and

WHEREAS the Select Committee advises that the Office of the Child

Advocate could be established for as little as $400,000 a year, which would represent a

sound investment of public dollars in the well-being of the children of our Province;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House express its desire that

the provincial government move expeditiously to establish an Office of the Child Advocate

for the benefit of the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased once again to rise today on behalf of the Public Service

Pensioners Association and present a petition to the House of Assembly, which I will

review again for the benefit of all members:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in Legislative Session

convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS the public service pensioners in this Province have not had an

increase to their pensions since 1989; and

WHEREAS some 11,000 retired public service pensioners are directly

affected; and

WHEREAS many public service pensioners who spent a lifetime

contributing to their society are now slipping deeper and deeper into poverty;

WHEREFORE your petitioners and those represented by the forms attached

urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide adequate increases in benefits

to public service pensioners which reflect the increases in the wages of public servants.

Mr. Speaker, the petition is signed by a number of pensioners in the

Province and, as previously, there were a number of ballots attached, and these ballots

indicate in very strong language the concerns of the pensioners of this Province. It

states: I, the undersigned, am a member of the Newfoundland Public Service Pensioners

Association. I strongly request the hon. Premier meet with his Cabinet to discuss and

approve a pension increase for Newfoundland public service pensioners.

For months on end, Mr. Speaker, public service pensioners in this

Province have sought, through this Legislature, through the media, through demonstrations,

through letters and through a various variety of means to get the attention of this

government in an effort to listen to their concerns. We have heard repeatedly that there

are literally thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, all of whom who have not

received an increase in benefits for almost ten years, who come asking this government to

sincerely and genuinely consider the situation and the circumstances of their existence

today.

The minister has repeatedly refused to listen to these concerns. What

is most disconcerting, the minister has repeatedly refused to even sit down with

representatives of the Public Service Pensioners' Association with a view to listening in

detail to the problems they experience on a day-to-day basis to see if there is some way,

if there is some mechanism available, to have their circumstances improved. The minister

has shown nothing but contempt for the way in which he has responded to these concerns.

Again, this organization, representing thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, is

forced to continue in its campaign to have this government address, in a serious way, what

their existence is on a day-to-day basis.

It is not good enough for the minister to simply use extreme examples

of individuals who may in fact receive pensions of in excess of $100,000 a year. We know,

and the public of this Province knows full well, that is not the situation concerning

thousands. In fact, the average pension is in the range of some $11,000. That is the

reality. This government has chosen to refuse to listen to their concerns and that is why

they will continue their campaign. That is why we, as members of the Official Opposition,

will stand when required and when asked by individuals representing this group to put

forward their concerns in an effort to have the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

take a serious view as to what is happening with respect to the thousands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Forget the excuses, I say. These are hard-working Newfoundlanders,

these are dedicated people, who have given years of their lives to the public good, and

now the government is simply turning their back on them. I say that is not good enough. To

11,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that is simply not good enough.

I will predict that one day soon the minister may see the light and may

see that this is a genuine need. We have Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who require to

be heard, and one day soon it is hoped that the minister will come to his senses and do

what is proper, do what is appropriate, do what is fair, and listen to the concerns of the

thousands of Newfoundlanders who are saying: Give us a break. It has been ten years since

any attention -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - has been given to us. Give us a break, give us

what we deserve. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward by my colleague the Member

for St. John's East. I note that this is the eighth time, I think, in this particular

session that this member has stood in his place and presented petitions on behalf of the

retired pensioners in the public service.

Last year, we on this side of the House, on behalf of our party, put

forward a private member's resolution with the same purpose. We are again today calling

upon the government to examine their position, to ask themselves a very basic question: Is

their position reflective of the principles of fairness and balance? Is it reflective of

an equal sharing that should occur for the people of this Province in terms of supporting

people who have contributed many years in the public service? We say on this side of the

House it isn't.

We acknowledge that the people who are asking for help are people who

have given many years of service, and the average pension is a mere $11,000. That means

that when the minister talks about people getting $100,000, in order for the average to be

$11,000, that means that there have to be some people getting very low pensions. The

minister talks about people getting over $100,000. When we start working on averages, we

certainly know that if the average is $11,000 than a few people with pensions of $100,000

certainly distort the figure. It means that we have a lot of people living on very low

pensions.

I can tell this House that in my district I can take members to

households where people are dependent on the good will of societies like St. Vincent de

Paul, the Salvation Army, the food bank at Cochrane Street United Church, and other

agencies who have to support people who are on pensions.

As a matter of fact, we have in this Province over 500 teachers who are

retired, who have pensions that are under $8,000. Something needs to be done. Up until

1989 the government of the day looked at retirees and said they would consider

transferring to them sums somewhat equal to the increases that were given to the public

service who were in unionized contracts.

That has not happened. We have people now who got their last increase

in their pensions nearly ten years ago. That is not fair, that is not just. While the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board can stand in his place and tell us all of the

examples of the very high levels of pensions, he can give a rationale as to why he cannot

do this and cannot do that, we on this side of the House call upon the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board to re-examine his position, re-examine it with a sense of compassion,

re-examine it with a willingness to understand the view point of those people who are

retired civil servants in this Province. It is unreasonable to expect a person who has

given thirty or more years to the public service to be retired today and be expected to

live on an average of $11,000.

We ask to the minister: Where is his sense of compassion, where is his

sense of willingness to reach out? Why will he not listen to the prayers of the petition

put forward by my colleague and listen to the plea of the retirees in this Province who

are saying: We want to have a little help, we want to be sure we can live adequately in

our retirement years?

The public service retirees are asking for reconsideration. I got a

glimmer of hope the other day from the minister that he might be willing to consider other

proposals. We have not heard anything about that since then. I am not sure whether or not

the government has a social policy which will address this, but if they do I think it is

time for them to start sharing the information with the retirees in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to have just a few brief words with respect to the petition

presented with respect to public service pensions and the request for increases.

As was indicated by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, we do

not have a particular difficulty with the notion of increases. However, as was indicated

by, I guess, Mr. Fenwick in his column on the weekend, this government wants to have

increases that we can afford to pay for. The unfortunate

part is that the members opposite

are not willing to tell the truth about the matter. They are not willing to come clean

with the facts.

We have a letter in The Telegram today from a Mr. Arthur Downey

from St. John's who tells part of the information - there is a much bigger story to it -,

and it is information that the Member for St. John's East, in presenting the petition,

referenced again that it is only a couple of million dollars a year to pay for it. The

fact of the matter is that if you are going to pay $2 million out every year, you have to

put significantly more than that into the fund and invest it so that it can sustain a

payout of $2 million a year over time.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley on a point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, just prior to his going to a new

sentence, the Minister of Education said that members on this side of the House were not

willing to tell the truth. That is doing through the back door what you will not do

through the front door. It amounts to accusing the Opposition over here of unworthy

motives and engaging in politics that would be unacceptable, and using language that

certainly is unparliamentary. Mr. Speaker, I ask if you would use your good office to ask

the minister to apologize for these inferences.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I note the hon. member has said something that is unparliamentary. The

Chair did not pick it up at the time, but if he has I am sure the hon. member will

apologize.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. If there was anything that I

said that was unparliamentary I would gladly apologize and withdraw.

The point I was trying to make is that the Opposition will not tell the

full story about the pension issue. The fact of the matter is that what they are

proposing, and what is basically contained in the letter today, which is the kind of

attitude they say they agree with, is that because we only pay out about $100 million a

year in pension benefits, a 2 per cent increase is only $2 million. That is the history of

seventeen years of Progressive Conservative administration that finally today they said

they are proud to associate themselves with, because they normally run so far from it and

suggest that they were not here and they had nothing to do with it. Because they were

ashamed of what happened in the seventeen years, absolutely ashamed that they supported a

group of politicians that ran the Province to the edge of absolute financial chaos and

bankruptcy.

It is only ten years later, under the guidance of people like the

current Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, that we are finally starting to see a

little ray of light. What they are suggesting is: Now that you are starting to see a

little ray of light, let's go back to the old practices and run her into the ground again.

The fact of the matter is, to pay for a 2 per cent increase in pensions

a year you have to put $22 million into the fund. You do not pay the $2 million once, you

pay it this year, you pay it next year, you pay it the year after, you pay it the year

after that. The payout gets bigger than $2 million. It does not stay at $2 million. You

cannot just spend $2 million. In the fund itself, to keep it stable, you have to invest

over $20 million. The fact they say it is only $2 million - which is what the Opposition

says - shows exactly how they ran the funds for seventeen years. It shows why they were in

such dire straits. Public commentators, such as Mr. Fenwick in his comment on the weekend,

said: Whatever the government does, do not go back to doing that.

We have said that we will find a way to assist those that are living

with marginal incomes, whether they be public pensioners or not. We will do it in a

budgeted, planned fashion, not with `ad hocery' that will lead to disastrous financial

consequences for the taxpayers of the Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I present the petition I would just like to say I wish I knew

half as much as the Minister of Education. If I only knew half as much. I never met a man

that knew so much about everything as the Minister of Education. He can stand in this

House and he knows everything. The man has all the answers. He stands here and talks about

all the bad things that were done and the wonderful things that he would do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. the Minister of Education on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. For the hon. member, I just want to

let him know that I aspire to know just half as much as the hon. Member for Ferryland,

your Opposition House Leader, who should still be the Leader of your party if people like

yourself had not stabbed him in the back. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South I believe is going to present a

petition.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, thank God for people like the Minister

of Education. I do not know where we would be without them. Continue to believe it, I say

to the minister.

I stand today to present a petition which reads:

To the Honourable House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in

legislation session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Labrador City.

WHEREAS we the residents of Labrador City condemn the Provincial

Government in supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada's decision to process Labrador's

resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to reverse the decision immediately and support a policy of secondary processing

within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is just one of many petitions that have been

presented here since this session of the House convened back on November 18, I think it

was, when a delegation from Labrador City visited the city and brought forward their

concerns and their opinions with what is happening here.

I myself have received letters from councils in my district asking me

to speak up and support the residents of Labrador City in their quest to see the expansion

of the pelletizing plant and the extra benefits that will flow from that being allowed to

happen in Labrador City.

Twenty-five or thirty years ago, if this particular event took place,

where you would be taking an expansion of the pellet plant or any other construction

project or manufacturing project from Labrador City, I don't think you would hear half the

cries you are hearing today. Today you are hearing them because Labrador City has become a

home to many residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a home where they have raised

their families, where their families have been educated, and they have put down their

roots there. They want to live and raise their families in Labrador City.

The people are crying out and asking: What is the difference in the

government's approach to Labrador City and in its approach to Voisey's Bay? Where

government have brought in legislation, and made it retroactive back to 1993. Where now

they can say to Inco, the giant nickel producer: If you are going to come and mine nickel

here, then you also have to refine it here and you have to smelt it here. We are not going

to allow you, Inco, to take our minerals up to Sudbury, Ontario, and refine them.

The people in Labrador City ask: Why the double standard? Why now can't

we have our iron ore that is being mined, milled and pelletized in Labrador City? God

knows, even taking it to that stage, which is the primary stage we are taking it to, we

are now still giving away thousands of jobs and thousands of employment opportunities.

I refer to an

article that was on television there just a few weeks

ago, where we saw carpenters being brought in from other provinces to work on the

construction of the Sobey's complex here in St. John's. They were paying them $28 an hour,

bringing them in, paying their room and board, paying their transportation costs to get

here, and our own people unemployed, our own Newfoundland carpenters allowed to sit home

and draw unemployment insurance, if they are fortunate enough to draw unemployment

insurance.

Many of our construction workers today, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - are going to the Department of Human Resources

and Employment to order to access an income.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people in Labrador City I present this

petition today.

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

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

I rise again to support the petition so ably put forward by my

colleague the Member for Bonavista South. The petitioners want this government to

reconsider. They want them to think about what they have done, what messages they have

sent to the people of Labrador West. These residents of Labrador City condemn the

government in supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada's decision to process Labrador

resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec. They want the government to answer the basic question:

Where are your loyalties? Are your loyalties with the people of Labrador West or are they

with the people of Quebec?

We saw the Premier of Quebec moving down to Sept-Iles to announce his

re-election campaign. What a sad story, when we see the premier of a sister province

moving down to Sept-Iles to launch his re-election campaign based on the development of

resources that are in Newfoundland and Labrador. To make that happen, this government had

to agree that North Limited would be able to move their pelletizing processes from the

Labrador City area down to Sept-Iles, Quebec.

We know what has happened. The government has abandoned Labrador West,

they have written it off. It is like the

article that was in Maclean's magazine two

weeks ago. It talked about the federal Liberal government and their approach to Atlantic

Canada. The federal Liberals from Ontario are now saying they do not care about Atlantic

Canada. In fact, in the Maclean's

article it said that the federal Liberal Party

has written off Atlantic Canada for generations to come. What a statement. The Liberal

Atlantic Canada for generations to come. What has happened in Labrador West is that this

Liberal government has written Labrador West completely off. They said they are prepared

to desert them completely. What a shameful thing to do! What a shameful thing for any

government to do, of any party and at any time.

When we look at the letters that were written just last week by the

Mayor of Labrador City, Mayor Darrel Brenton, when he calls upon the government to

reconsider their position. Mayor Brenton is speaking for the ordinary people of Labrador

City who are finding that they are seeing jobs being threatened. We know right now that

North Limited has given a verbal commitment to this government, and the Premier has

accepted that verbal commitment, on jobs in Labrador West, but they will not put anything

in writing. We know that the production plants are now running at one-half capacity.

When will this government realize that their decision relative to the

Iron Ore Company, relative to pelletizing the product at Sept-Iles as opposed to expanding

the operations in Labrador City, when will they realize it is a bad decision? It is not

just bad for Labrador West. It is a bad signal to be sending to the people who are

developing the resources. We say to the government, isn't it about time you started

standing up for the people of Labrador City and standing up for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, making sure our people get the jobs that come from our resources?

We have seen too much in our history of governments that have abandoned

ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We know that the Premier of Quebec has great

skill. He certainly was able to persuade North Limited that the best place to operate was

in Sept-Iles. What was shameful is that this Premier and this government went along with

Premier Lucien Bouchard. He said: We know it is going to cost a bit more and that kind of

thing. That is okay with us. Give us your word that there will be no long-term job losses.

When we asked for -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - the word of North Limited in writing, it is

nowhere to be found.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the government to reconsider its position and do the

right thing for the people of Labrador West.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. DECKER: Order No. 33, Mr. Speaker, which is Bill No. 57.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public

Utilities Act". (Bill No. 57)

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this bill is pure, total housekeeping. The

bill would amend the Public Utilities Act to reflect changes in the law and in

administrative components of the PUB. References, for example, to telephone services are

removed. At one time the PUB used to control telephone rates in this Province. That has

since been taken over by the CRTC, so it is no longer relevant.

The penalties are increased to reflect the current monetary value. Some

of the penalties have been in place for quite a number of years and they are much too

small in today's dollars. Some of the administrative components of the Board - let me

explain to hon. members. If a secretary of the PUB has some sick leave for a few weeks, a

month, or whatever the case might be, the chairman has to come to Cabinet to get

permission to replace a secretary for a month or whatever the case might be. A lot of

these little technical things, administrative things, we feel (inaudible). There is no

change in policy. It is simply a few housekeeping matters.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few comments with

respect to Bill 57,

An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act.

The Minister of Justice has indicated, and I agree largely with him,

that it is legislation which deals with housekeeping and just streamlining, I guess, some

of the present provisions of the act and the procedure which obviously ought to be

improved from time to time.

However, there are a couple of points that I would just like to make

specific reference to. I will begin with

section 7 of bill 57, which states that:

Section

18 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: The Board may publish an annual

report regarding its proceedings.

I find it somewhat unusual that this amendment, or this Bill 57, which

deals with the day-to-day activities of the Public Utilities Board in this Province, would

in fact have a provision which simply states that the board may publish an annual report.

It is somewhat unusual, I think, that there is no requirement, I say to the minister, to

publish an annual report on a daily basis - I am sorry, on a yearly basis.

We are talking about significant procedures in the Province. It affects

the public at large, I say to the minister. Why there is only discretion given to the

board that it may or not, depending on, I suppose, the circumstances of that year or

whatever, or depending on whether the board feels it is appropriate to do it, it seems to

me there must be a requirement by government to say to the board, dealing with such

important matters of public interest, and dealing with interests that affect all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - because any application before a public utility board

does impact upon all Newfoundlanders and all Labradorians. I think it is somewhat unusual

that there is no requirement by statute to have the review of these proceedings carried

out and explained and provided to the people of the Province on a yearly basis.

It seems to me that the minister may want to reflect on that particular

point and give some consideration to the possibility of simply amending - and one word is

all it would require - instead of `may' publish, simply, `shall' publish. Then the people

of the Province will know from year to year exactly what the board is doing on a yearly

basis, and the people of the Province can be informed on an annual basis as to its

activities.

Under

section 11.(2) "

(6) Notwithstanding subsection (5), a public

utility may, without the prior approval of the board, demand from its customers a

contribution toward the cost of an improvement or an addition to its property where the

demand for the contribution is approved under a policy of the board.".

It seems to me that there should be some follow-up. I do not have

difficulty with the fact that there may be particular circumstances whereby approval is

not required. It seems to me that once this event occurs there should then be an

obligation on the public utility to advise the board of the fact that it did in fact

proceed and make a decision and demand from its customers a contribution towards the cost

of an improvement or addition to its property.

Notwithstanding the fact that approval may not be required, it seems to

me that if in fact a public utility carries out its activities in this form and seeks

compensation or contribution from the customers, there should then be an obligation to

advise the board that this, in fact, is the case.

Under

section 14 it states:

Section 82 of the Act is repealed and the

following substituted: "82. Where the board believes that a rate or charge is

unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory, or that a reasonable service is not supplied, or

that an investigation of a matter relating to a public utility should be made, it may, of

its own motion, summarily investigate the rate or charge or matter with or without

notice.".

It seems to me that is a sound change, because I guess it puts all

parties on notice that the board has control and has the ability to make decisions which

again would impact so significantly on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The rest of the bill is largely, to use the minister's word,

housekeeping. We see an increase in the penal provisions, for example, in

section 18, the

amount of $500 to reflect, I guess, a deterrent which is more reasonable today and the

amount is increased to $2,500. Also, in

section 16, "A full and complete record shall

be kept of all proceedings held before the board on formal investigations and all

testimony shall be recorded in the manner ordered by the board.".

I am not familiar with the prior section; however, it would seem to be

unusual that that wouldn't be the case anyway. If there is a proceeding, as all hon.

members know, a full official record of these proceedings with respect to any

investigation, testimony, evidence, et cetera, would have to be recorded as ordered by the

board.

Mr. Speaker, it is largely housekeeping, I agree with the minister;

however, those couple of points with respect to the notice and with respect to the

requirement, it seems to me, of an annual report. Again, in the interest of full

disclosure and in the interest of a word commonly used these days, transparency, it is in

the interest of all the people of this Province that a full report be provided so that it

is available upon the request of a member of the public. Because this is what this act is

all about. It is protecting the interests of all customers and it is protecting the

interests of the public at large.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak briefly on Bill

57,

An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act, here at second reading.

I support the changes outlined in the act, although some of them may

have some far-reaching implications. I do not pretend to be an expert in public utilities

matters, although I have appeared before the Pubic Utilities Board on a number of

occasions in rate hearings with respect to telephone services as well as electricity rate

hearings - most recently the current rate hearing before the board where I intervened for

one specific purpose and that was to deal with what I perceived to be a discriminatory and

unreasonable approach being taken by the utility in terms of its power of collection of

arrears for light bills, which appears to me very draconian in its approach and resulting

in some 1,800 cutoffs of electrical service each year for the past several years - in many

cases for amounts far less than $500. In fact, for the year 1998, of about 1,600 or more

cutoffs of electricity, about 40 per cent of them were for amounts less than $500, some

even as low as slightly over $100.

Mr. Speaker, I intervened to ask the Public Utilities Board to review

the approach and policies of Newfoundland Light and Power as it deals with the issue of

collection of arrears, and ask them to implement a more reasonable policy which would give

consumers an opportunity to pay off arrears - if they get caught in arrears for economic

reasons, whether it be for the loss of a job or loss of income or a major illness. Many

people get into financial trouble as a result of this sort of short-term or one-time

event. They get faced with cutoff notices fairly quickly by the Public Utilities Board.

The impression that everyone gets from the approach that Newfoundland Light and Power

takes to its election policy in terms of dealing with the individuals is that if you do

not pay up all of your money you are going to be cut off by a certain date. In fact, we

have had people contacting my office who say that they have a bill of $150 or $200 and

they have offered to pay $100 or $75 but the power company say they will not take it, and

they are still going to cut us off. We have had to tell them to go in and make the payment

and almost guarantee them, by force of logic, that they will not refuse it. That if money

is brought to them that is owed to them, they are not going to turn it down. We have had

to intervene on behalf of customers of Newfoundland Light and Power to try and avoid the

consequence of having their power cut off.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the supply of electricity to a home is a

major, major factor in the security of that home and habitability of that home. A threat

to cut off electricity is a very serious one. The Public Utilities Board is charged with

the responsibility of looking at these matters and acting in the public interest in them,

and we have had some series of interventions in the last couple of years by an individual

who has become known as the consumer advocate, Mr. Dennis Browne, who has been given

considerable latitude by government in terms of his approach to the Public Utilities Board

and has had very positive results for consumers; so it seems that this approach is

working, that the Public Utilities Board is responding when given an opportunity to delve

into the issues, and the evidence to back it up is able to place some control at least

over the operations of these major utilities.

The minister has increased fines to $2,500 from $500, in some cases up

to $5,000 as a deterrent. I do not know whether a company such as Newfoundland Light and

Power, which takes in several hundred million dollars a year, is seriously deterred by a

fine of $5,000; although I suppose at least the perception of increasing the fines shows

that the Minister of Justice is wielding a big stick here and making it look like his get

tough attitude is going to have them quaking in their boots over at Newfoundland Power, or

any other body that is governed by the Public Utilities Board. You have to remember, it is

not just Newfoundland Light and Power that is covered by public utilities. They have other

duties outside of that.

I concur with the comments of my learned it friend, I say, from St.

John's East, who talked about the requirement of an annual report. I think it should be

required. We have reports in this House of Assembly from the Labour Relations Board and

from other boards, and there is no reason why there should not be a requirement as opposed

to - the way it is written here, it is certainly written as an option for the Public

Utilities Board as opposed to a requirement.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are some serious implications of the... In

clause 11 of the bill, changing

section 41 to allow a public utility to act - it appears

to allow it to act - on a policy of the board with respect to demanding a contribution

from customers for the cost of capital improvements to its property.

To me, the grand weakness of the whole regulation of public utilities

in this Province is the ability of a company such as Newfoundland Power to add to its

revenues by adding to its capital base. If they go out and buy new suite of office chairs

that cost $5,000, they are delighted because they can now earn a rate of return on that

$5,000. The more they can spend, the better it is for them. There is something inherently

wrong with that system unless there are very, very tight controls on it.

I do not know how it is possible to have someone look over their

shoulder and say: Well, they replaced all of these chairs that were ten years old. They

might have lasted another five years, so they go in and replace them all and increase

their capital cost, increase their capital budget, and therefore their rate of return is

now allowed to be earned on this additional capital that they are using in their

operations.

I just use that as an example because you know the provision of office

chairs is not directly related to the distribution of electricity, although obviously they

have to have offices and they have to have management and they have to have furniture to

operate out of, but it is an example of how a company such as Newfoundland Power or any

regulated company can increase its capital base by going out and spending as much money as

it can get away with spending, to justify an increase in its earnings.

The reason they do that, of course, is all about growth. From a

corporate management point of view, if you cannot show your shareholders - (inaudible)

shareholder at Newfoundland Power. Of course there is only one shareholder and that is

Fortis. If you cannot please your shareholder by showing an increase in profit or increase

in earnings then you are not doing a good job. So they are required - particularly now

when we have a fairly flat demand for electricity in this Province - to find ways of

increasing the revenues, and they do that by increasing capital expenditures.

Now they would certainly argue that everything they do is used and

useful, I think is the phrase, in the provision of electrical services. That is the only

test that can be used by the Public Utilities Commission to put a stop to or disallow

particular capital expenditures, but it is a really unwieldy kind of measure, it is an

unwieldy kind of approach, and I don't know if there are other solutions. There may be

other solutions that can be looked at in terms of dealing with this, but in the meantime

there is a need, a very important need, for the Public Utilities Commission to play a very

strong role in keeping at bay, as it were, the voracious appetite for this type of

corporation to increase its revenues, to increase its take of money from consumers, and

increase its profits for its shareholder.

The process which they use to do that is to go to the Public Utilities

Board, and the Public Utilities Commission is the only thing standing between the consumer

and the company in terms of forcing it to behave in a somewhat reasonable fashion. It is

difficult to do but the Public Utilities Commission has a very important role to play in

doing that.

The company that we are talking about here, Newfoundland Power, will do

essentially what it can get away with. It created Fortis Corporation, sold all of its

shares to Fortis and created a separate holding company to own it, all without Public

Utilities Board approval. They did not even go to ask them whether or not this was a

permitted activity, whether or not the Public Utilities Board could do it. They have gone

about doing whatever they can to increase their revenues.

For example, despite their talk about conservation, they have in the

past even gotten rid of conservation measures that would have helped individual consumers

but caused a reduction in sales. I will give you an example. There is a special kind of

insert that can be put in your shower that saves water. It saves hot water and therefore

saves electricity. It was something that was put in place as a result of exhortations to

the public utility to get involved in what is called demand-side manage to reduce demand

for electricity and thereby saving consumers money and saving the need for additional

expansion.

Mr. Speaker, it was shown that this particular measure, which was being

subsidized by Newfoundland Light in a special program, saved consumers about $24 a year.

That is a lot of money to people who have a very low income. It makes a lot of difference

in their income. It may not be to some other people, but that is a small reduction but an

important reduction in savings.

Mr. Speaker, the company cut it out when it discovered that it was

reducing their electricity sales and felt that it was counter to the company's desire to

increase sales. Because it was reducing electricity sales they felt it was not meeting

their needs in terms of demand-side management. On the other hand, it was meeting

consumers' needs and yet the company cut it out.

This is one little example of the kind of thinking that goes on in a

public utility like Newfoundland Light and Power, that on the one hand they are very

desirous of spending lots of money on capital improvement and capital cost because they

can get a return on their investment, a return on the rate base it's called, for that

expenditure. On the other hand, an expenditure that saves consumers money, if it results

in reduced sales to the company, they will not bother about at all.

So there is a bit of an inherent conflict at work there and there is a

very strong need for a powerful regulatory body. As long as we have a private utility -

which perhaps should be brought into question - of this nature, there has to be a strong

regulatory body to try and keep it in check.

Those are my comments, Mr. Speaker, in support of Bill 57 at second

reading.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): If the minister speaks now he will close the

debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's East raised a

couple of points which I will certainly take under advisement. I suspect there is a reason

why it is a "may." If there is no reason which satisfies me it will become a

shall, I will tell the hon. member. He raised two excellent points. I will certainly get

an answer to what they are. I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Utilities

Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 57).

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I was going to call the Provincial Court

Act, but the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is back and we may not catch him any

more. Let's call Order No. 32, which is Bill No. 52.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The

Imposition Of A Charge Related To The Provision Of Certain Government Services".

(Bill No. 52).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This arises out of a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. I

tried to remember what the name was. It starts with a `u.' It is slightly unusual name. It

was a case brought in Ontario questioning the validity of the imposition of estate fees

when an estate was probated. The Supreme Court of Canada held that because of the size of

the fee, it was not in the nature of a fee; it was in effect a tax. It decided that those

impositions had to be by legislation, that they could not be by any other form, including

regulation.

Another decision in the Supreme Court was that governments of the

country - provincial governments, and I suspect federal governments - would be given a

six-month period in which to bring in the necessary legislation to rectify this.

The Court did not say that the fee was unfair or undue, but did say the

way it had to be imposed was through legislation, because it was in the nature of a tax.

Since then the officials have surveyed the various taxes and fees imposed by the various

government departments and have now settled on the fees set forth in this enactment. We

are requesting the Legislature to have those now passed by the House as charges.

The various ones are set forth here, and I am sure members have had an

opportunity to look over them. The notable one is

section 4, which specifically address

the matters of probate and also intestate fees. Land registration charges are provided for

in clause 5, including mortgage registration costs and so forth. Clause 2 refers to

various fees of the Sheriff's Office, and clause 3 covers the fees under the Condominium

Act. They are now imposed as charges as opposed to being matters of regulation that often

formed an appendix to each budget, and were sometimes regulated by the department.

I am sure members are aware of the decision, and this is to clear up

what had been an incorrect imposition. Hopefully, it will clarify the legal situation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I accept what the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has indicated.

I am familiar with the case. Like the minister, I cannot remember the name. It is a case

which recently came down. I believe it originated in the Province of Ontario.

I remember an

article recently in the newspaper that indicated that

really what this was was a form of taxation, and it was being done simply arbitrarily by -

we have the name.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was just informed by one of

the staff that the name of the case was "Yorick." I think it comes from Hamlet :

"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio..."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I say to the hon. minister, you are right.

Mr. Minister, although we now have an attempt simply to codify what has

been the practice and what has been - either the Sheriff's Office, the Probate Registry or

the Registry of Deeds, Companies and Securities, I am assuming with the different facts

and figures there, Mr. Minister, that there are no increases. Is that the case? This

simply reflects what the various assessments and charges are today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes. In view of that, Mr. Speaker - and as I say,

I have some familiarity with the case to which the minister has referred - we are simply

putting in legislation what in fact has been the practice over the years. As hon. members

know, if for example an estate were to be probated or an estate were to be administered,

there is a probate or an administration fee which is assessed by the registry of the

Supreme Court. Likewise, if a mortgage, a release of mortgage, a debenture or deed of

conveyance were registered at the Registry of Deeds, there is a prescribed fee which has

to be assessed, and various fees, sundry fees, at the Sheriff's Office, for example.

According to the minister, we see no increase, and this is simply a

matter of putting in the form of legislation a practice which has existed and continues to

exist and, according to the minister again, with no increase in fees being attributed to

the public in any way. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wish to speak briefly on this legislation and recognize, as do

other hon. members, the necessity of legislation as a result of the Supreme Court of

Canada decision. The Supreme Court of Canada decision, I guess, just goes to show you that

there is always hope when it comes to taxes or charges made against you. I hope that my

own discussion with city council about fees charged to me results in some positive outcome

as well, in consideration.

As to the specifics of this, I understand we are not raising any fees

here or changing any fees, merely changing the form and the legal basis on which they are

collected. I hope the minister is able to confirm that. I think the intention here with

respect to the land registration charges provided for in

section 5 - there is a practice

at the Registry of where there is a refinancing underway, where perhaps an individual has

a mortgage of $50,000 and is increasing the amount of the mortgage from $50,000 to, say,

$60,000, that the charge that is placed by the Registry is not on the full $60,000 but in

fact on the difference between the existing security and the additional security.

I suppose one could be abundantly certain by talking about subclause

5(4) here that the amount shall be calculated on the amount of indebtedness, or further

indebtedness secured by the mortgage. I am not sure if it is necessary. The Clerk at the

Table has indicated it is not necessary, but that the intent is clear, that the existing

practice of only charging on the excess indebtedness is still permitted under the

legislation that we now have before us.

Perhaps the minister, in closing debate, can confirm that this is the

intent of government with respect to this legislation.

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

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just reply to the hon. members. It is the case that these are

the legislative embodiment of existing fees. There are no additional charges here.

What the hon. Leader of the NDP refers to is a practice in the

registry. My recollection from practice was that the fees were always prescribed, but the

registrar followed the practice that if an affidavit were filed to accept the value of the

affidavit coming from being witnessed by a barrister or solicitor, as the case may be. I

would not see the necessity to put it in the legislation, it might confuse matters, but

the existing practice as I know it will continue.

I therefore move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Imposition Of A Charge

Related To The Provision Of Certain Government Services," read a second time,

referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 52)

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

MR. DECKER: Order No. 28, Mr. Speaker, which is Bill No. 47.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial

Court Act, 1991". (Bill No 47)

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is being made at the

request of Chief Justice Donald Luther and the Family Law Rules Committee at the

Provincial Court. Up until now there has been no clear provision in the Provincial Court

Act that would allow for procedural rules in civil matters that would have the status of

subordinate legislation; in other words, procedural rules that would apply and be

enforceable in all Provincial Court centres.

Recently, a Family Law Rules Committee of the Provincial Court

constituted by the Chief Justice of the court requested this amendment to the act so that

the rules recommended by the committee and approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

could have the force of law.

Mr. Speaker, when that bill was made available to the Opposition Member

for St. John's East, he raised some concerns which I had investigated and I have come to

the conclusion that he was absolutely right. So he will probably take the opportunity to

explain them and I certainly will allow for an amendment in committee stage.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few comments on

Bill 47,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act.

The minister and I had an opportunity last week, after the introduction

of the bill, to discuss it somewhat informally. There were some concerns that were

expressed, and the minister was kind enough, the next day, to indicate that some of the

points that we discussed he had spoken with his officials and there was an agreement that

the points that were raised had some legitimacy. As a result, we will be moving an

amendment during committee stage with respect to two sections, pursuant to

section 1 of

the Provincial Court Act.

To put it simply, the legislation, the aim of this legislation, the

intent of this legislation, is, of course, to be procedural in nature. What it does, and

it is indicated in the explanatory note, is that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, upon

the recommendation of the minister, make rules regarding procedure and the operation of

the Provincial Court. I think the word `rule' is the key word here, because obviously the

word `rule' denotes procedure.

The difficulty with a couple of the sections that we now see in the

original form of the act is that we were getting outside the procedural aspect. We were

getting outside the rules which one would ordinarily see in legislation of this nature.

For example, in subsection (b), "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, upon the

recommendation of the minister, make rules with respect to the procedure and operation of

the court including rules..." under (b) "...regulating the means by which

particular facts may be proved and the method in which evidence may be given on an

application in proceeding...".

We can see quite clearly that this goes beyond a procedural component

and, in fact, introduces into what is an attempt to be simply procedural, substantive law.

We are talking about rules of evidence; we are talking about methodology in which evidence

may be presented in a legal proceeding.

Also, under subsection (c), rules respecting the physical or metal

examination of a party where the physical or mental condition of a party is an issue in a

proceeding.

That sort of determination ought to be left to the trail judge, I say,

Mr. Speaker. It is the trial court judge who, in his or her discretion, upon a variety of

facts, upon submissions made by council, upon the rules of evidence, will then make a

determination as to the rules or the procedures with respect to the physical or mental

examination of a party.

Simply, it would be inappropriate to have the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council, upon recommendation of a minister, to make determinations in legislation which

would impact matters of law, matters of fact, matters of evidence. So, as the hon.

minister indicated, during committee stage we will be presenting an amendment to delete

these two sections.

When we read the continuation of this legislation, we see that what is

now there is simply a matter of procedure. It deals, for example, with the service of

documents, the duties of court officials, the cost of proceedings, the format of orders,

transfer proceedings, how in-chambers or pre-trial matters are to be conducted, the use of

electronic telecommunications within a court, and rules governing pleading, practice and

procedure generally, which we often see, for example, in rules of court.

With these two exceptions we certainly have no difficulty with the

spirit of this legislation; give some guidance to Provincial Court Judges in terms of what

ought to be done from a procedural point of view when proceedings are taking place within

our Provincial Courts in this Province. Much of what we see here is similar to what Rules

Committees themselves deal with.

It was only a number of years ago that the Supreme Court of this

Province put together a Rules Committee to help it in dealing with these types of

procedural and rules matters. We see a similar application, I guess, of this type of

procedural component now being intergraded in the form of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to speak briefly

on Bill 47,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

First of all, let me say that I am very pleased that the Member for St.

John's East pointed out the difficulties with some of the provisions of this legislation.

It is quite appropriate to exclude the power over evidence and the means of proof of

particular facts as a part of the rules in this particular situation that we are supposed

to be dealing with, procedural matters, and matters which are properly the purview of

rules.

I think it is an example of how we, as legislators, have to be vigilant

when we are sitting here passing legislation, sometimes in a big hurry, and members are in

a hurry to get it passed so that they can get out of here for Christmas, et cetera, et

cetera. Sometimes people do not take the time to read and review and to study, as the

Member for St. John's East did with this particular piece of legislation, and it clearly

found that it was providing for inappropriate things.

I am in support certainly of the power to make rules of general

application for Provincial Courts, although I do wonder, and perhaps the minister is going

to explain to us, why this has to be the Lieutenant-Governor in Council making these rules

upon the recommendation of the minister. If there is a Rules Committee amongst the

Provincial Court Judges, why do we have the minister interposed in between the Rules

Committee and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council? Perhaps reference should be made to the

Rules Committee of the Provincial Court as the basis for these recommendations that the

minister has made.

Perhaps another amendment might be appropriate. The Lieutenant-Governor

in Council may, upon the recommendation of the minister, and add: upon the request of the

Rules Committee of the Provincial Court, or perhaps upon consultation with the Rules

Committee of the Provincial Court Judges, to indicate the source of those rules is not the

minister but in fact the judges of the court itself who are, as in the Supreme Court, the

ones charged with the responsibility of recommending rules.

I know that in the Supreme Court the judges have considerably more

power with respect to putting rules into effect that become binding. I do not see any real

problem with having these go through the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

It might be appropriate to refer to the Rules Committee in this

section

of the legislation in order to ensure that we know what the source of these rules are and

to ensure that the role of the Provincial Court Rules Committee is important to the

process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act,

1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 47)

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 30, which is Bill No. 50.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Municipalities Act". (Bill No. 50)

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

Transportation.

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

I have just a few comments on the introduction of this bill. At this

stage I am, as you would notice, as the alternate Minister for Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, standing in for the minister who is out of the House at this point.

This is basically a bill that accommodates and gives effect to a number

of changes to the act that have been long-standing proposals by the federation of mayors

and municipalities. In other words, the Federation that represents the municipalities as

incorporated in the Province have, over the years, asked for a bunch of changes to the

Municipalities Act to accommodate a variety of interests that they have.

This bill, I would say at the outset, has the support of the

association. It does a number of things. I do not want to spend a lot of time outlining

what it does because the notes are self-explanatory, but it deals with matters such as

more latitude with respect to the borrowing limits of a municipality outside of the year

in which the borrowing has taken place. It deals with the issue of donations that would

now become a general budgetary issue, as opposed to the current way in which donations are

categorized. It gives some more latitude to the municipalities with respect to the rate of

interest they may charge on past due accounts. It gives more flexibility to the

municipalities with respect to the discount rates they can charge or they can permit to be

affixed to tax assessments, in the interest, I would suggest, of trying to encourage

faster and more timely collections. It deals with the issue of minimum tax on real

properties, as currently outlined under

section 114 of the act. It deals with the issue of

real property tax to a tenant of a non-taxable real property situation. It also clarifies

issues with respect to residences of churches and that sort of thing that are owned and

occupied by rabbis, priests or clergymen. The tax also deals with the issue of minimum

amounts of business tax that can be assessed.

There are two or three other areas that are addressed in this bill, but

they are mostly clarification issues. This bill also seeks to clarify the year which is

referred to in terms of establishing a person's income under the Income Tax Act as being

the previous taxation year for which the individual has filed a tax return.

These are the highlights of the bill. One other thing it does, though,

is it permits a lien or an attachment on property for the securing of taxes, other than

real property taxes. In other words, it extends the ability of the municipality to be able

to lien property for purposes of collecting things like water and sewerage taxes. At the

moment that type of flexibility or additional flexibility is not permitted under the

current act.

Finally, clause 15 of the act is simply an increase from $25 to $50 in

the fine or penalty that can be imposed where that situation gives rise.

These amendments are all amendments, as I have said earlier, that were

long-standing proposals of the Federation. They have been brought together in a bunch of

amendments that are represented by Bill 50. The effect of this, I believe, will do two or

three things. It first of all will satisfy many of the outstanding demands for legislative

change by the federation. Second, it will make for the more efficient operation of

municipalities, in terms of the latitude they will have to make decisions that are really

of a housekeeping or operational nature on an ongoing basis, such as fixing fines, levying

taxes, deciding on donations, and a little more flexibility with their borrowing power.

Thirdly, it will generally give effect to many of the aspirations of the municipalities

that really, at the end of the day, allows them a little more autonomy, or probably a

substantial amount more of autonomy, than they have now is carrying on with their

business.

I think it is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that this government recognizes

the municipalities' level of government as important, legitimate, and as a level of

government that is in many respects a partnership with the Province. We believe that to

the maximum extent we can we should make the municipalities not only responsible but also

accountable for what they do because, of course, they are mature political bodies and they

should have the ability to do their own business without reference to undue regulation and

legislation, as this series of amendments represents.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: I must say, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if he is the

acting minister or what he is, but he did a pretty good job there. Probably what he said

we are probably going to say in a couple of minutes.

We do not have any real problems with this particular piece of

legislation. We have been in conversation with the federation of mayors and

municipalities. I think most of the items that are here are things the Federation wanted.

We believe the Federation should certainly have the right to impose property taxes, and

they should have the right to charge interest and so on.

I guess if there was one concern I would have at the end of the day is

this. I know that with a lot of municipalities they set out a process whereby people can

go in and make arrangements to pay off their taxes. If somebody takes five months, twelve

months, whatever, to pay off their taxes, then they end up at the end of the year probably

being charged a fair amount of interest. I am not so sure if that is a good thing or not.

By and large, we have absolutely no problem with this particular bill.

At the end of the day when it comes forward for a vote our party will be supportive.

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

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do rise to close debate on this bill that was introduced only a

minute or two ago. I appreciate the conciseness of the comments and the remarks, and the

limited number of questions that were put forward by my colleague and friend, having

treated me so well on the introduction of this bill. I will call him both of these

descriptive words. I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act,"

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill

No. 50).

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

MR. DECKER: Order No. 31, Bill No. 51. Since the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation did such a good job on the previous bill I will ask him to

introduce this one as well.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's

Assessment Act". (Bill No. 51)

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill is really a bill to give rise to a taxing arrangement that

has been entered into and agreed upon between the City of St. John's and the hoteliers

that operate in this city in terms of their industry. As Members of the House would know,

the St. John's civic centre has I suppose four partners in terms of the funding

arrangements under which it is being constructed. There is the substantial provincial

contribution to that project, there is the federal contribution to that project, there is

the city's contribution to that project, in light of their commitment of $4 million just

before the deal was consummated, and then of course there is the fourth partner, but a

very important partner in that project, and that is the hoteliers in the St. John's

municipality boundaries.

The hoteliers essentially worked out an arrangement, or they agreed to

an arrangement, with City Council that would allow City Council for a period of time to

impose a tax on accommodations within the city for purposes of making their contribution

to the civic centre and the convention centre. The hoteliers, it is no secret, have a

significant interest in particularly seeing that the convention centre is constructed as

part of this development. We have taken the position along with them, and all the

stakeholders at the end of the day took the position, that the convention centre and the

civic centre would become in effect one project that would be done, built, completed in a

time

schedule that saw the two done at the same time, which is in a two-year period A

significant part of that project is the contribution of the hoteliers through this tax

that they will make to City Hall, which in effect will form part of the city's and the

hoteliers, as a partnership, funding contribution to the overall project.

There has been more than a suggestion, there have been some voices as

members of the Hoteliers Association, that have suggested that the may not now be entirely

happy with being a part of this taxing arrangement. I refer to the B&B operators. The

fact of the matter is, and we say this quite honestly and quite openly, that from the

Province's perspective what this legislation does is permit the city to levy a tax as was

agreed between the Hoteliers Association and the city.

This does not in any way translate into a tax or an imposition of an

assessment by the Province on anybody. This is not a piece of legislation that gives the

Province any taxing authority or any taxing ability. This gives the city and the hoteliers

the ability to be able to consummate the tax arrangement they agreed to at a rate of, I

believe it is, 3 per cent when they made that agreement. At the end of the day it will be

the City of St. John's, it will be the municipal council in St. John's, which will

determine exactly who is and who is not taxed under this. Of course, that will be subject

to the arrangements that are worked out by the city with the hoteliers.

The concept originally was that accommodations within the city that

came under the auspices of the Hoteliers Association, plus some other accommodations such

as commercial rentals entered into by places like Memorial University and Littledale,

would be taxed at the rate that they agreed on. This legislation, without saying anything

further, will really cause the city to have the ability to levy the tax that was mutually

agreed upon at some point in time in the past between the Hoteliers Association and

between the city of St. John's.

I do not think it needs any further explanation. However, we would be

happy to answer any questions that might arise as a result of any speakers being put

forward on the other side. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, we

cannot give this bill the blessing we gave the previous bill. While agreeing on this side

of the House to the construction and government involvement with the new civic centre for

the City of St. John's, I do have some problems with it. I realize that the hoteliers in

the City of St. John's are on side with this particular piece of legislation. I think that

is good, and I think that the ultimate benefit coming from the centre will certainly go to

the hoteliers.

I guess, and the minister alluded to this, the problem that I have with

it is the fact that the B&Bs are going to be lumped in with this particular group. I

do not think that there is any real benefit for that particular group to be gained if we

allow the City of St. John's to tax the B&B groups in the city. We have had, some of

us, representation made to us concerning B&B places in the City of St. John's. They

have been very clear in their voice and very clear in what they have had to say. They are

opposed to this. I even believe that members that they had serving on the committee - I do

believe, and I stand to be corrected on this -, that the members they did have on this

particular committee have resigned from the committee. I do believe it was mainly because

of - I have to check with my colleague here - this particular tax. They were not part of

the decision making.

I think that while the bill is a good bill, I think we should exempt

the B&B locations in and around the City of St. John's from this particular piece of

legislation. I should not say in and around St. John's, I should say within the City of

St. John's. I think B&Bs should be eliminated from this. I think when we send it down

I hope the city will do that.

I again agree with the minister. If this House passes this bill it is

not a tax the government are imposing on anybody. The ultimate right to do this is left

with the City of St. John's. We fully understand that but, again, I have to say that I

have a problem, on behalf of the B&Bs in the City of St. John's. I want to state that

for the record today. I would hope that when this eventually ends up at City Hall the

B&Bs in the City of St. John's will be exempt from this particular piece of

legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a few comments with respect to

An Act To Amend The

St. John's Assessment Act, Bill 51. I understand what the minister is saying is that this

legislation really gives the power of the city to enforce assessments and levy taxes or

assessments as the city sees fit. However, there is a group - and my colleague the Member

for Conception Bay South alluded to it just a few moments ago - that I, at least as one

member, would like to go on record in supporting. Because this is a group that has felt

throughout this whole process, and throughout this whole procedure, that it has been

disenfranchised from day one. I am referring specifically to the owners of the B&B

facilities in the city, and indeed probably for others in the Province. However,

specifically, the owners in the city, because of course this act is

An Act To Amend The

City of St. John's Assessment Act.

I have had the opportunity to meet with several of the owners of

B&B facilities in St. John's and I have also received some correspondence from them.

They have expressed their disapproval with the fact that they have not been, as they put

it, within the loop. They have not been part and parcel of the decision making with

respect to the business of the hoteliers in this city, and the fact that whether or not

there should be a 3 per cent room tax. There was an agreement, according to this

particular group, signed by the Avalon Convention and Visitors Bureau. According to the

B&B owners, they feel that this agreement is not valid with the majority of the

stakeholders in the accommodation in the City. They feel that because the interests of the

B&B owners are not being protected, and that their concerns were not addressed, they

question the validity of this particular agreement.

They go on to say that the B&B and other small accommodation

operators in St. John's have been totally disenfranchised in all of the decision making.

They also say, in addition to that with the exception of one major city in our country,

namely Vancouver, we will in effect be the only other major city, the only capital city in

our country, that will in fact have a tax levied against this particular group.

Eighty-five per cent of the clients of B&B and small accommodation

operators are other Newfoundlanders, people who have come to St. John's for medical

treatment, for graduations, for shopping, or just to visit the capital city. Of course the

question, and a very legitimate question, is being asked by this group. What is the

possible rationale for having our fellow Newfoundlanders pay an additional 3 per cent for

an activity which has a small base, is a small business, and has very limited revenue even

at the very outset?

This particular group says that the tax is an onerous one. The owners

of B&Bs in this City acknowledge they are marginal operations, and almost without

exception require other income to survive.

These sorts of points that are being made by the owners of B&Bs are

worthy of being put on record,