December 10, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 59

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin routine proceedings the Chair would like to welcome

today, on behalf of all members, Mayor Tony Ryan and Deputy Mayor Wayne Finlay from the

Town of Port Saunders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make a statement in

response to comments that were made by Mayor Andy Wells of St. John's with reference to

the issue of water taxes on provincial government buildings in the city.

At Monday night's council meeting, Mayor Wells suggested that the

city's grants to community groups could be on the chopping block if government does not

agree immediately to pay an extra $2.2 million to the City of St. John's.

The government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not

going to be held hostage by the Mayor of the City of St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: What the mayor is engaging in here is political

terrorism. It is despicable for the Mayor of St. John's to place the burden of the city's

shortfall on the backs of community groups serving the socially disabled in this Province.

This government has been more than fair to the City of St. John's and,

Mr. Speaker, the record shows that it has.

Here is a list of some of the things that the government has done for

the City of St. John's in 1998: $68.2 million for the completion of the Outer Ring Road;

$16 million for a civic centre; $5.9 million upgrade to Memorial University Utilities

Annex; $5.6 million annual debt servicing; $5.3 million annual municipal operating grant;

$5 million in 1998 capital works projects; $3.2 million in transitional grants for the

fire department; $3 million for the clean-up of the harbour; $400,000 for landslide

prevention at the Battery, and the list goes on.

In addition, the Province has provided some $132,000 in Special

Assistance Grants. This total includes $86,000 for the St. John's Boundary Expansion as

well as $10,000 for Iris Kirby House.

I think it is important to put the entire matter in its proper

perspective.

The city claims that I made a commitment to pay them water and sewer

tax at the expiration of the government's firefighting grant which is due to expire,

ladies and gentleman, Mr. Speaker, on March 31, 1999. The amount of this firefighting

grant is $3.2 million over two years.

On September 9 of this year, the Mayor of St. John's wrote the Province

with respect to the matter of taxation on provincial properties. In response, the Premier

reaffirmed government's commitment to devise an approach that is fair and equitable to all

municipalities. The Premier further assured the mayor that upon completion of the study,

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will made appropriate recommendations to

Cabinet and that decision with respect to this matter will be provided to municipalities

at the earliest possible time.

There is a basis on which water taxes are currently being paid to the

City of St. John's, the City of Corner Brook, and the City of Mount Pearl. This is not

just a matter of paying taxes in Corner Brook and not in St. John's. There are anomalies

in this whole situation associated with the existing systems in three cities, and steps

are being initiated to correct them.

The Mayor of St. John's should not expect any radical change that would

warrant the opening up of Provincial coffers prior to the announcement of the next

municipal budget.

I have asked my colleagues in the House of Assembly representing the

City of St. John's to join me in a meeting with the city in an attempt to address this

whole issue.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps the key word in this Ministerial Statement today is found on

page 2, where the minister himself states: There are anomalies associated within the

existing system and appropriate steps are being initiated to correct them.

I say to the minister, that is the case. Water services to the

Province, in the City of St. John's, includes such institutions as Memorial University and

hospitals, all of which are provincial institutions. Therefore, the payment for water

services is on behalf of all the citizens of the Province, all Newfoundlanders and all

Labradorians.

What we need is an end to the war of words which is constantly taking

place and which unfortunately involves the same constituents; in many cases the residents

of the City of St. John's and all the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. I call upon

this minister and this government to show some leadership in putting an end to this war of

words which is ongoing on a continual basis and serves to help nobody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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.

In response to the minister's statement, while I too cannot condone a

tactic which would suggest that community groups, social groups, would suffer directly if

this government did not act immediately, I have to recognize and fully support the efforts

of the City Council of St. John's to ensure that the citizens of St. John's do not bear an

unfair tax burden at the expense of the provincial citizens whose institutions are being

serviced by water and sewer, as well as everyone else in St. John's.

Single payments such as the Outer Ring Road or particular projects are

distributed throughout the Province, and cannot be used to replace ongoing commitments to

meet the expenses incurred directly against the city. I would support the efforts to deal

with this situation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - as quickly as possible. I would be happy to join with

the minister in a meeting to try and resolve this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to bring forward this ministerial statement on behalf of

myself and the Minister of Justice.

I ask hon. members to join me and the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador today in recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights.

On December 12, 1948 the United Nations adopted the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights which initiated a positive step forward for the cause of human

rights.

Since that time a global consensus on basic human rights has developed

through a number of international agreements and conventions. However, despite these

words, millions of people worldwide are still denied their basic rights.

Today, in the lobby of the Confederation Building, Oxfam Canada is

providing an opportunity for all members of this House to sign the Global Charter for

basic human rights.

I am told that representatives of Oxfam are here in the gallery today -

I know they are certainly outside, Bill Hynd and Linda Ross - and have already collected

over 6,000 signatures from all over the Province, through churches, schools and community

organizations.

Also today, joining us in the gallery, will be students from a number

of different districts who have also signed and supported this cause. I commend these

students, Oxfam, and all others who have offered their efforts to further this cause.

In Canada, the influence of the Universal Declaration can be seen in

both the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Of

particular importance is the recognition provided in the Universal Declaration of the

inherent dignity and equality of all people and nations, and that respect for the rights

of people is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

This Province's own Human Rights Code is a reflection of the importance

of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Many of the principles of the Universal Declaration, particularly the

principles of respect for the rights of people and the ability of people to live their

lives without discrimination, are to be found in the Human Rights Code of our Province.

Last year, government strengthened our Code with an amendment to

include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination in recognition of the

need to bring our legislation in line with the needs of the 21st century.

I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the work of the

Human Rights Commission. The Commission has been instrumental in upholding the importance

of the respect for human rights in our Province.

Earlier this week, the Commission announced it has published an

Annotated Human Rights Code and launched its own World Wide Web site.

On behalf of the government, I wish to thank the Commission for its

efforts to date and congratulate the Commission on these most important recent

accomplishments.

This year, our Province will join every Canadian province and

territory, and other member nations, in celebrating the anniversary of this historic

declarations.

Together, we will reaffirm our commitment to promote universal respect

for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians take their freedoms for granted.

But the rights and freedoms we enjoy today are the result of years of struggle by

individuals and groups who wish to live in a just society.

Oxfam hopes to raise awareness as well among the public that people

everywhere have basic rights and that these people should be protected, respected and

fulfilled.

In the year 2000, these signatures, along with millions gathered by

Oxfam around the world, will be presented to the United Nations as a sign of our

dedication to making the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a reality.

I encourage everyone to sign the Global Charter, to do your

part in

helping to secure basic human tights for everyone.

Today, as we celebrate this important anniversary, we appreciate and we

give thanks for the rights and freedoms we do enjoy, and we affirm government's commitment

to ensuring our rights and freedoms are maintained and strengthened for our future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Minister of Justice for a copy of part of that statement,

because I understand it was an integration of two.

First, I would like to recognize and welcome representatives of Oxfam.

It is certainly an organization that is recognized throughout the world. I congratulate

them and thank the representatives of Oxfam for their very good work.

It is also important that we recognize the 50th anniversary of the

Universal Declaration of Human rights, and it is important as well that we recognize the

good work of our local Human Rights Commission. It is important to remember that we live

in a country that has many benefits, and it is important that we realize also that we are

a country which is a refugee receiving nation.

Approximately one month ago I had the opportunity to attend a ceremony

at City Hall where some forty or fifty new Canadians chose Canada, voluntarily, as their

new country and as their country of citizenship. That to me is an obvious reflection of

the importance and the role that Canada plays in this World.

We must also keep in mind that when dealing with human rights it is

never a stagnant issue. It is forever changing, it is forever evolving, and we must always

strive for improvements with respect to human rights codes, either in our Province or in

our nation. We saw an improvement, for example, in the past number of months with respect

to the amendment to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination.

Human rights is an important issue, never stagnant, always growing, always developing, and

always open for improvement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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 would like to join in recognizing today as the 50th anniversary of

the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I want to pay tribute to all the

groups who have advanced human rights in this Province in our society, particularly the

Human Rights Commission of the Province, the Human Rights Association, OXFAM, which is

particularly interested in international rights, and women's rights groups which have

fought to try and make those rights living, breathing examples of what we are entitled to

have in our society.

As I say, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is still a living,

breathing document that challenges us daily, as we found this week in the House with

respect to women's rights.

Article 23 of the Universal Declaration talks about the right

to work and the right to just and favourable conditions of work and protection against

unemployment. We do not have that right, in reality, in Newfoundland. As we speak

government is preparing legislation that will ensure that home care workers do not have

the right to adequate protection against unfavourable conditions of work.

We have daily challenges, Mr. Speaker, in the area of human rights, not

only universally but in our own city and Province, and we ought to be very vigilant about

them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. I have had some representation recently from people in the Clarenville area with

respect to the construction of a community sports complex for that area, a facility that

has been paid for primarily - or the majority of it - by taxpayers. Some $956,000 of

public money was contributed from the Province and Ottawa under the Canada/Newfoundland

Infrastructure Agreement. The remaining one-third was a private contribution claimed to be

a loan from the Federal Business Development Bank.

Can the minister tell me if there were proposal calls to the community

to construct and operate this facility?

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

Affairs.

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

Were there proposal calls by whom? I do not know the question. It was a

private sector application to the infrastructure program. It was not called by the

municipalities; it was private request.

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

Opposition.

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

It is my understanding that the department was involved in the

monitoring of the project. Surely there was a significant amount of provincial dollars

into it. Claims have been made to me, which I bring forward to you as minister today, that

government did not call for proposals but chose the operator itself. Is this unusual? If

it is not unusual, could you explain why it would not be unusual under the

Canada/Newfoundland Infrastructure Program?

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

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: The only thing that the provincial government and my

office had to do with the whole project was project approvals, and we do that for every

project - financial participation, federal, provincial, and project management. They had

to submit plans to us to fall within the guidelines set out under the Public Tender Act.

They had to go to tender with their plans. They had to accept the lowest prices. That all

falls under the Public Tender Act.

I can assure the hon. member that was checked on and I can assure the

hon. member that my staff certainly made sure that all the rules and regulations

pertaining to the construction of that facility were carried out legally, as far as I

know.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: The contention from local business in the area is

that it appears to be highly unusual that approximately $1 million in public money would

be used under the infrastructure program to construct a facility which has a large

commercial component. Does the minister think it is appropriate that a publicly funded

facility, with public taxpayers' dollars, should compete with existing private enterprise

in the area?

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

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: No, I certainly do not. I agree with the sentiment of

the hon. gentleman's comments. If you remember - please give me due indulgence here - last

year when this whole question came up, it was me who refused to provide the money to the

area, to this particular private individual, and I held off on it. In fact, after a number

of questions from the members of the Opposition and members from this side of the House on

what I was actually doing with it, because I was nervous about it, I wrote the mayor a

letter and asked him: Would he categorically either accept or reject this on the basis

that we were afraid that this was going to happen?

Subsequent to that, not only did we get the town's support but we got

support from the Clarenville area Chamber of Commerce, the Eastern Community College in

Clarenville, the Broomfield-Musgravetown Lions Club, Hospitality Newfoundland and

Labrador, eight development associations covering the entire Bonavista Peninsula and

extending to Port Blandford, to Long Harbour, along with numerous other groups and

organizations. The only letter - and I say this quite honestly - that I received contrary

to the sportsplex being built in Clarenville was a letter from Mr. Peter O'Brien of the

Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses. One letter, Mr. Speaker.

I stood in this House day after day and said: No, I will not provide

the money for this project until the people of Clarenville and the area come forward and

say to me: Mr. Reid, we want that facility.

Mr. Speaker, I can produce every one of those letters here today, if

you wish.

MR. WALSH: You can't ask for more than that.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell

Island - is that the correct name? - is right; you cannot ask for more than that. But that

was then -

AN HON. MEMBER: Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. E. BYRNE: Conception Bay East & Bell Island, I am sorry.

That was then. This is now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, that is not what I am saying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in the last little while I have had a

number of representations from people who are involved in the Chamber of Commerce, that

the facility has gone in a direction where it was not supposed to head; that there are

other commercial ventures going on within the facility beyond the scope of what was

originally intended.

I would like to ask the minister this question. Obviously public money

has been put into this facility. Can the minister tell us: Is there any security within -

that the Province has secured for the close to $1 million that was put into this facility?

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

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has some

correspondence from people or whatever, who have concern about this, I would like to see

it because I don't have any correspondence from anybody in Clarenville or from anybody who

has a problem with this; not a thing. I have not received anything.

As I said, there was one letter that came from the Association of

Independent Business People back a year-and-a-half ago and up until now there was one

inquiry by phone, to my office, by a gentleman who thought he was being competed with, and

he was talking about a sports bar. It was called Don Cherry's Sports Bar and Grill that

has been opened out there. We did an investigation into that. In fact, we sent our people

out and we asked for an independent assessment done on it. We found that this bar and

grill that is being installed out there is not provincial or federal government money; it

is the money that is being provided by the owner of the building, himself. So it is

private money. There is no money going into it.

I don't know, I cannot say for sure here today, if we do have any

security on that particular - I would be surprised if we don't, but I will find out for

the hon. gentleman and let him know as quickly as I possibly can. I don't know what

security the Province has on that type of facility. I don't know, I'm sorry.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Mr. Minister, under our system of government there is a clear contrast

between the proper role of ministers and the proper role of public servants. Ministers are

responsible for setting policies and creating programs and then it is the responsibility

of public servants to administer. The activities of the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs in administering the Provincial Home Repair Program clearly indicate he

has abandoned his role as chief policy maker and placed himself in the role of

administrator of the program. Doesn't the minister feel that this is what he has done?

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

Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, let me say once again that there is an

article in the paper today about how I click my fingers, and the hon. Member for St.

John's South succeeded. Mr. Speaker, I had no more to do with this, with clicking my

fingers - or he did either -than you did, Your Honour.

The community health boards in St. John's are the ones that determine -

and this is an answer to that question - who gets funding in St. John's. The community

health board, in consultation with my department of housing, determines who gets it. The

hon. gentleman that this gentleman stood in the House two days ago and ranted and raved

about, was turned down by the community health board, not by me. Subsequent to that, he

was reassessed.

The day that I stood in the House, which was yesterday, and said you

had it, he had it; but it had nothing to do with me, not one thing in this world. He was

reassessed by the community health board, and I challenge anyone in this House and anyone

in this Province to find out other than that. I had nothing to do with it.

The day before last, when the hon. gentleman who just posed this

question to me, the very moment that I was standing in this House, his secretary was

calling my office and asking my office: Would I do an inspection on a person in Deer Lake

that the hon. Member for Conception Bay South, or Holyrood or wherever, requested, while

he was questioning me in the House on whether or not I had that authority! While he was

doing it! That was the (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: I will prove that to you too as well, if you want to

challenge me, because I have it on record.

Mr. Speaker, I say quite honestly to you that I have been taking a lot

of criticism here in the last few days, and I am taking it based on the assumption that I

am doing something different for myself or for any other member of this House. I am not

doing it. I am helping people on that side of the House, I am helping people on this side

of the House, to help the most needy clients that we have in this Province, and I will try

my best to continue to do that. I take exception, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister this. Programs of universal

application, including the Provincial Home Repair Program, are most fairly administered by

people who have political motives, but political intervention has taken the fairness away

and forced the system to react to calls for political favours. The program thereby becomes

available to those with the best political connections and not to those most in need.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Doesn't the minister feel this is what has happened

through his intervention in the Provincial Home Repair Program?

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

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I tabled yesterday in this House the

guidelines for the Provincial Home Repair Program. If somebody had taken the time to read

them they would have seen that in the guidelines the people at the Housing Corporation,

along with influence from a number of people - from church groups, from MHAs, from

community health groups and so on - have the right to turn around, because of the extra

money that was put into the program to do such a thing.

Mr. Speaker, why is it considered political patronage or not right for,

let's say, I as an individual to do it for someone in my district when the hon. Leader of

the Opposition can write me a letter and ask me to do it for him? I don't understand why

he can do that. I don't understand that.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me make the distinction clear for the minister.

The person who was referred by my office to the minister was in need of the program, met

the criteria -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on, hold on!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me finish. The allegation, Mr. Speaker, is that

people who were in less need were bumped ahead. What I did as a member was correct.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: It was correct, in referring a situation - the

situation and circumstances had changed on this lady - and asking the minister to review

it. If the minister in his review with department officials felt that the circumstances

had changed to such a degree that her need had increased, then he should have done

something about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister can try to muddy the waters all he

wants. He cannot use an eighty-year-old woman in my district for his own political

advantage, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There is no point of order.

MR. EFFORD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is all well and good for the members on

the opposite side, including the Leader of the Opposition, to stand in this House of

Assembly and question any minister on this side with regard to political patronage, then

to say that the only need is on that side of the House, and that no representation from

this side of the House can come forward. You cannot have it both ways!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: There has been no reference that the need for people

(inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair hasn't recognized the hon. member yet.

There was no point of order raised by the hon. minister.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

order.

MR. E. BYRNE: There was no assertion made by me in this House that

need only exists on this side of the House. It is not exclusive to anybody. I referred to

one person. What I said is that it is shameful for the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs to use an eighty-year-old woman for his own political advantage in this

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the luxury of one or two

secretaries in my office, but I can assure the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs that my secretary did not phone his office looking for help for anybody.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

question.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, two days ago in the House of Assembly the

minister suggested that forty-seven MHAs, other than himself, should go to him personally

with cases needing attention, to lobby him to push them up the list. Isn't that precisely

the minister's problem? Surely it is time to put such programs on a sound administrative

footing. Would the minister consider exempting himself from the decision making process on

this program, and other programs of universal application, and set up a mechanism whereby

the program can be fairly delivered to all citizens?

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

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am looking for the letter, because I

went up yesterday to the member for Deer Lake and I referred it to him. He said that he

would not do it. He refused to do it on behalf of that same person. So this person

(inaudible).

Mr. Speaker, let me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: MHA referrals were a part of this new program, and

everyone was afforded the opportunity to benefit from this program. There is no problem to

prove that. Whether that was right or wrong is debateable, I guess, and that is the reason

the debate is going on here today. It was done with the best intentions to help people in

need.

I am perfectly prepared to go back to the fixed term of six to seven

years, because that is where people were. Prior to this program this year, it took six to

seven years for someone to get on a list and actually get done. If that is what this House

wants me to do, set up a waiting list and not allow any flexibility whatsoever - because

up until this year there was no flexibility because it was operated by the federal

government.

In that period of time, I would like to hear from MHAs on this

particular matter. In the meantime, if that is what you want me to do, I can order stops

of any referrals, Mr. Speaker from those (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to conclude his answer.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that I am not

only answering to the Opposition here. I am answering also to a local newspaper which

continues to quote that I had 20 per cent or 25 per cent of the grants in my district. I

am ashamed to stand in the House today and say I only got 25 per cent. I should have had a

lot more. Here is the reason why, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. A. REID: Seventy-five per cent of all applications in 1991 came

from Carbonear, and 55 per cent of all applications came from Carbonear in 1992. Out of

the 8,000 in the Province, 1,139 came from Carbonear. The reason why there was a pent up

need in Carbonear for the last number of years -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. -

MR. A. REID: - was that the previous Tory government designated

Carbonear as the last community in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister -

MR. A. REID: - to receive RRAP grants. The last community!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, proper shelter is one of the most basic

needs of citizens. When inadequate shelter is provided other aspects of life deteriorate,

such as health. It is evident from the number of proposals the minister received that the

program is certainly underfunded, in addition to being inappropriately administered. Will

you consider increasing the program funding so more families in need of proper shelter can

be accommodated?

MR. GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the hon. member was asking his question I wondered if while he

was still recognized that he might want to apologize for the obscene gesture he made to me

across the floor a couple of minutes ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: I admit, Mr. Speaker, that I was heckling him, but I

think the obscene gesture was unwarranted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have a firsthand knowledge of some of

the conditions that people are living in in this Province. I have a firsthand knowledge

because I have been minister of housing now for almost six years. I have a firsthand

knowledge of, in some cases, deplorable conditions that some people are living in this

Province.

I feel personally, and I think I can say this on behalf of this side of

the House - apparently it is not true on the other side - that I think if we are going to

put money into a housing program the money has to be directed. Not to a list of people who

have been there for six, seven or eight years, but it has to be directed directly to

people in need.

I really do not think that there should ever be a list created. I do

not think there should be a list created on a first-come, first-served basis. I think

there should be plenty of money, or enough money, in a program to provide what is

necessary for people to live in a comfortable, clean house.

I say quite honestly to the hon. member and to you, Mr. Speaker, that I

would only be too glad if this government could find an extra $10 million, $15 million or

$20 million to put into the housing budget and be able to administer it like that. I do

not believe, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. A. REID: - that we should be accommodating people on a list for

six or eight years. I do not think that is all we should do. We should do other than that.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to return to the issue raised during the ministerial

statements dealing with the provincial responsibility for water consumption as it relates

to the City of St. John's. It is a very important issue. It is an issue which is causing

some concern for a lot of people, not only residents of this city, but indeed all of the

citizens of this Province.

At 1:00 p.m. I attended today a news conference where the Ministers of

Works, Services and Transportation and Health and Community Health were present, in what I

would call was just simply a return volley. It was a return volley and it does nothing to

help put an end to what is a very difficult situation.

I say to the Minister of Health and Community Services who has a

district in the City of St. John's, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

who has a district in St. John's, and my District -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - of St. John's East, that we are talking about

the same constituents, the same constituents over which the City of St. John's has

jurisdiction. My question is to either of the two ministers who attended this news

conference today. Will they take some leadership, Mr. Speaker, to put an end to what is

becoming a very aggravating situation, an end to this ongoing dispute between the City of

St. John's and the Province? I would ask either of these ministers to assume some

leadership and respond to this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the question is completely out of order. If

there is a question for the Minister of Health and Community Services, the member can rise

in his place and ask it. If there is a question for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, he can rise in his place and ask it. It seems to me that if there is a

question of substance it should be addressed to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order. A member may direct his questions to any

minister. Questions are directed towards government, and any minister may respond to a

given question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I have asked the question. I just reaffirm the

point that it was these ministers were at the press conference at 1:00 p.m. -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - in the absence of the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. My question is: Will either of these ministers assume some leadership

and help resolve this ongoing dispute?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. member knows that, as we said at the press

conference, my colleague and I, we have been in fact taking a leadership role in trying to

resolve this issue. As a matter of fact, we have a meeting arranged for 3:00 this

afternoon with members of the City Council to deal with this issue. We have organized this

meeting as a result, really, of some calls from some city councillors who thought we

should do this, and we agree.

The problem we have had as a government with the City of St. John's is

that we have been attacked, we have been maligned, and we have been victimized by a

council who has a leader that really should be trivialized. The fact of the matter is if

city council, under its current leadership mayor, had any interest in dealing with matters

on a productive and cooperative basis, they would deal with us on a direct basis and not

through the media. Media grandstanding may be okay in certain circumstances but when the

City of St. John's, under its current leadership, decides to put out a full page ad in The

Telegram that is factually inaccurate, that is totally inconsistent with the truth -

if I might say -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - when the leader of the City of St. John's decides

to deal with us in that fashion, we have no choice but to do two things: To continue to

say that we will meet with them and work on their problems, and that in the interim if we

have to address allegations publicly we will be the first to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: We had a press conference today to deal with some

allegations. We are having a meeting at 3:00 p.m. to deal with some matters of substance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: What the minister fails to recognize is that this

mayor is his mayor, he is my mayor, he is your constituent's mayor, he is my constituent's

mayor. We have to work together, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Rather than a flippant response, I ask the

minister again: What will he do as a minister of this Crown, as a member for a district in

this city, what will he do to show some leadership to resolve this ongoing matter?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that we are meeting

with city council this afternoon and hopefully out of that meeting will come a positive

and productive approach to the problem that the city alleges it has.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will be at

the meeting. He will, on behalf of government, articulate government's position and where

we are. The thing that is most bothersome, I would say to the hon. Member for St. John's

Centre - St. John's East, I am sorry. The Minister is from St. John's Centre. The Member

is from St. John's East; the member who wishes he was a minister but will never have that

occasion any time soon.

To the hon. member, we are prepared to do everything we can on a

reasonable basis to address any issue that the City of St. John's puts forward. The

problem that we are having with the City of St. John's - and I speak as a Member of the

House of Assembly for the City of St. John's - is that we have leadership in place down

there -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: - that is, on a political basis, operating day to day

to malign, discredit, distort and cause misinformation to be distributed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: That has to be addressed. I addressed it today, my

colleagues addressed it today at a press conference, and we will continue to defend

ourselves and support government and do what is right for the citizens of the city.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are to the

Minister of Health and Community Services.

Minister, our Province is last among all provinces in Canada in its

efforts to help people suffering from schizophrenia. Current provincial policy requires

uninsured patients to be failed by at least two older medications before they can try

these new break-through medications. This prior authorization process is unlike that of

any other class of prescription drugs that is presently on the provincial formulary. The

result is increased hospitalization, increased visits to see their general physicians,

increased cost of drugs, incarceration and homelessness.

I am sure the minister is aware that medications represent only 5 per

cent of the cost of dealing with schizophrenia,

whereas hospitalization is 89 per cent. I

want to ask the minister: Why are you denying the open access to those typical

anti-psychotics?

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The decisions that we have been taking most

recently with respect to adding new drugs to our formulary has been based on evidence. We

have been working very closely with the specialists involved in making those decisions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: With respect though to this particular - if the

member would care to hear the answer about this very important issue, I would only be too

happy to answer it.

Right now we are working as well with physicians. We are very close to

finalizing an arrangement with respect to schizophrenic drugs. We are waiting to get a

final approval through our chief researcher, through the Human Investigations Committee,

and we are waiting on that because we do like to follow the proper process and procedures

before we make any announcement about schizophrenic drugs. I say to the member that we

will be making an announcement. I understand the approval we are waiting to hear should be

due within the next couple of weeks and we will be making an announcement at that

particular time.

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

Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, on a point of

order.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to raise a point of order and maybe a point of privilege

with respect to something that occurred during Question Period that I raised briefly at

the time.

In the last few days we have dealt with an issue of some language that

was used here - because we do have audio coverage of what happens in this Legislature -

and, as a result, certain apologies were given and certain language was considered to be

out of order and so on.

We had today, Mr. Speaker, witnessed by many members on this side of

the House and by people in the gallery on this side of the House, an obscene gesture made

to me, directed towards me, during Question Period by the Member for Conception Bay South.

Any time that I have broken the rules of this House and been called to

task by the Speaker I have always retracted and apologized. I would ask if the Member for

Conception Bay South would acknowledge that he made an obscene gesture that, if we had

video coverage of this House, the people of the Province would have seen and would have

found offensive; that he would acknowledge that and would do the right thing, the same as

I would do: stand up and recognize that it was in the heat of debate.

I was heckling the man improperly. I apologize for the heckling. I

think he should be man enough to stand up and apologize for an obscene gesture directed at

me as a member of this House; because if we had video coverage of this House, every person

in the Province would say that it was behaviour unbecoming an hon. member and he should do

the honourable thing and offer an apology.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair, of course, did not see anything that was out of the ordinary

here in the House during Question Period in terms of gestures by members. That is not to

say the member did not make it or did make it. The Chair can only refer to Hansard for

comments, for the verbal record of things that happen in the House. The Chair will say, if

the member had done something wrong then I am sure the hon. member will apologize for it.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

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

If the Minister of Education thinks that I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: I wonder if we could get a gag for this man over here,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, if the minister - which I did not, by the

way -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes you did.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: I didn't, but if the minister -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) liar.

MR. FRENCH: Pardon?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Minister of Education to withdraw that remark without

qualification.

MR. GRIMES: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, because I have such respect

for the rules of the House. I know that calling a member a liar is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: I retract the statement, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw

the statement even though it happens to be true!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, if the minister thinks that I did and it

was directed towards him, then I certainly would retract it. I certainly would.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act."

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I was asked in the House yesterday to

provide the criteria for contractor selection for the RRAP program and contract selection

for the department. I would like to table the criteria for that right now, for the

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of the

people of Labrador City, Labrador West;

WHEREAS the residents of Labrador City condemn the provincial

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

resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

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

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to raise these petitions in the

House day after day as we have done in the past. As recently as yesterday and today we

have been talking to people from Labrador West, Mr. Speaker, and they certainly have not

forgotten this issue; although they probably don't get the media attention they deserve

because they are in Labrador West and are not here every day to fight the battle. There

are many people in this Province who support them in their petition.

Very simply put, Mr. Speaker, on the day the election was called in

Quebec, Premier...

MR. J. BYRNE: Bouchard.

MR. SHELLEY: Bouchard. I sort of forget that name all the time. I

don't know if it is intentional or not, Mr. Speaker. Premier Bouchard, the man who is

going to try to break up this country of ours, gloated and kicked off his provincial

campaign in Sept Iles, Quebec, bragging about the jobs that were going to be created in

Quebec because of a resource coming from Labrador West.

The people of this Province and the people of Labrador West certainly

have not accepted it, to date, and will never accept it, Mr. Speaker. It is up to this

government now to put a halt to it and show the same consistency that they had shown, Mr.

Speaker, when they took on the Inco giant, when they were going to make sure that the

process was done here in Newfoundland and Labrador for the benefit of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

What this has done really, Mr. Speaker, is thrown an inconsistent

message to the people of this Province, saying: We are going to be tough with our

resources one day but not tough the next day. I say to the ministers who are in the House:

They still have time to correct this, to change it and to get back on track.

The people of Labrador West are simply saying, Mr. Speaker: After

thirty-six years of mining iron ore in Labrador West, after all the profits that have been

made from this resource, if they want to make more profits, they are going to have to do

it in Labrador West. That is a simply statement we have always put forward, we have been

consistent on it for over a year.

Mr. Speaker, the very first day I heard that North was going to take

over the Iron Ore Company of Canada, I asked questions in this House, and the minister and

many other people assured us at the time that this would never happen, that we wouldn't

see the iron ore of Labrador West going to Quebec or anywhere else for that matter, going

to Quebec to create jobs in that province.

We are going to continue to support the people of Labrador West. We

have not forgotten it, we are going to have more questions in this House for the people of

Labrador West on this particular issue. By the way, Mr. Speaker, a lot of questions which

the government made commitments to answer, they still have not answered yet, and the

people of Labrador West are waiting for those answers. I made that comment to the minister

today, as a matter of fact, that many questions have still not been answered, Mr. Speaker,

that the government should get back on track, get those questions answered, get up to

Labrador West and make sure they have those meetings to answer the questions that are

still unanswered.

Mr. Speaker, we still support not only the people of Labrador West but

the people of this Province, when they talk about our resources and what this Province

should be getting from our resources. It should mean jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador. It

shouldn't mean 250 jobs down in Sept Iles, Quebec.

So we support you and we are going to continue to raise these petitions

in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, whether they are ignored by the government or not.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward today by my colleague, the

Member for Baie Verte, and the critic for the Department of Mines and Energy.

Mr. Speaker, we have been putting forward these petitions now for a

great number of days, and we call upon the government to begin some meaningful dialogue

with the people in Labrador City and Wabush area. Mr. Speaker, the people of Labrador City

are in this capital city today. They have been visiting ministers since the morning, and I

do believe that more meetings are still ongoing as this day goes on.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity this morning to meet with some of

the representatives from the joint councils. These people are telling us that they have

not heard from the ministry since they were here some weeks ago, there is not a good flow

of dialogue. It is such that the people in Labrador City feel abandoned by this

government, absolutely abandoned. Mr. Speaker, the councils in Labrador have put forward a

great number of questions and to date they have not received an answer. That is totally

unreasonable and it is totally inappropriate that there be no communication going back and

forth on this very serious issue. The people of Labrador City feel abandoned by their own

government.

Mr. Speaker, it is a long distance between here and Labrador City and

these people cannot be in this capital city and this building every day to advocate their

cause. They come to this capital city and to the offices of the administration looking for

some positive and good encouragement, and they have not been receiving it.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Labrador City are concerned with the current

state of production. They are concerned with the long term. Mr. Speaker, we know what is

happening here, that the ore from Labrador is going outside the Province, it is creating

jobs in another province. It is no wonder that the Premier of the other sister province is

so happy about this particular decision. They believe that not enough was done by this

government to protect their jobs, to protect the industry in Labrador City, Mr. Speaker,

and they have just cause to believe that. They believe more could have been done.

Since they were here some weeks ago there has been zilch by way of

communication; nothing at all. There have been no meetings carried on with the joint

councils of Labrador, no meetings carried on with the Mayor of Labrador City, his council,

the Chamber of Commerce and other representatives there.

Mr. Speaker, these people are asking this House today what is going on,

when can they have some dialogue, when can they sit down with ministers. I know that today

the Minister of Labour met with the representatives. I know as well there was a meeting on

this morning with other government departments. Mr. Speaker, it should not be required

that people have to travel all the way from Labrador City into this particular

administrative government system to get answers to very simple questions. Mr. Speaker, we

have to work with the people of Labrador City to make sure that the jobs there are

protected in the long term. When these people said, not enough has been done - they

believe more could have been done and they are calling upon government today to do a lot

more than they have been doing, particularly in the last few weeks.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

has been presented here again today with respect to the issue in Labrador West and the

expansion to the mine operation, as well as to the pelletizing plant in Labrador West, and

the activation of a pellet plant in Sept-Iles, Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think anyone should misunderstand the position of

the government. It is not that the government disagrees with the petitioners or disagrees

with the point they are trying to make, that we would like to have the additional jobs and

the full expansion in Labrador West, instead of part of it in Quebec. The difficulty, Mr.

Speaker, is that we are trying to get the Opposition, rather than play politics with the

issue, to be frank about what it is, exactly, they think the government could do without

causing more problems than the current issue has already caused. Because, Mr. Speaker, we

have only heard a couple of suggestions.

One suggestion from the Member for Ferryland, who has repeated it

several times, is that he would not let it go ahead at all, he would demand that the ore

stay in the ground. That is his point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Minister of Education and Training just made a statement

that is incorrect. He either doesn't understand the statement or he is misleading this

House, one or the other. I did not make that statement and I would like the minister to

apologize for accusing me of making it. I think the record of Hansard will speak for

itself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The record of Hansard speaks very loudly for itself, because the Member

for Ferryland is on record as saying, when asked what would you do about it: I would leave

it in the ground.

Now, leaving it in the ground, Mr. Speaker, has ramifications for not

only Labrador City but also all of the operation in Wabush. So that obviously is not a

solution, and we are looking for solutions.

The suggestion from the hon. Member for Waterford Valley today is that

the government has not done enough, and that there has not been a discussion. Today alone,

Mr. Speaker, there has been an eighteen page question and answer document given to the

Chamber of Commerce representatives from Labrador answering every single item that they

have ever raised a question about, with the information as the government knows it. He is

trying to suggest otherwise, and I think everybody understands the politics of the issue

and the fact that they are trying to jump onto an issue because they believe there is some

credibility in it for them.

The issue is this, Mr. Speaker: If there was something that this

government could do by taking a unilateral action to stop the decision of the company, it

would have been done. The members opposite know that. They have also talked at times, Mr.

Speaker, about maybe changing the 1938 Act. They know, because they have talked about it

in this House, that would attract all kinds of lawsuits and legal liability and financial

liability for the government, for the taxpayers of the Province, that would be way beyond

the value of any expansion currently being discussed in Labrador West. So they don't want

to hear the real facts, Mr. Speaker, they don't want to talk about the issues, and they

will always refuse to say, if we play the game of pretend and if they were ever the

government and if they were put in charge of this, what would they do. When asked that

question they never answer, Mr. Speaker, because they know there is no answer. They will

pretend they can do something.

We have done everything we can, we will continue to make sure we

maximize economic benefit for Labrador West, Mr. Speaker, and I challenge any one of the

members opposite, anytime, to stand up and say exactly what they would have done

differently if they were the government. Because they would do nothing differently and

they should stand up and admit it, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition. I

wasn't going to, but I have been enticed into this debate by the Minister of Education,

whose statements reflect a political lack of will on behalf of the government. He has

asked directly what we would do. In the next five minutes you will hear it.

Mr. Speaker, one of the first Question Periods - we all know what the

Minister of Education has done or not done but I am not going to lower myself to get into

that aspect of it. We would like to stick to issue, I say to him today, and that is not a

problem. With respect to the decision made by IOCC, I will ask this question: If the

Government of Quebec took a delegation from Sept-Iles, from the Department of Mines and

Energy, from other departments of industry and trade, representing the Government of

Quebec, and -

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member presenting a petition or is he

speaking to something?

MR. E. BYRNE: I am presenting a petition, Mr. Speaker.

- and went to Australia, where North's headquarters were, for over two

weeks to negotiate with the parent company of IOCC, offering wage incentives, offering tax

incentives and offering training incentives. Mr. Speaker, that is what they did.

Now let's compare it to what the Newfoundland government did, the

government elected to represent the interests of people in this Province. The Premier of

the Province - one year before this decision was made, during the Labrador Games, I say to

the minister - went to Labrador City, met with the Chamber of Commerce, met with the local

leadership in the area and what did he give a commitment to? He said this: If that

announcement by IOCC to expand its pellet plant operation does not occur in Labrador West,

I will be the first person on the plane to Australia. I will be the one who will be going

to make sure that it does not happen.

Question: Did any officials from the Department of Education, Mines and

Energy, Industry, Trade and Technology, representation from the leadership in Labrador

West or any representation from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, go to

negotiate at North's headquarters in Australia? No. So that is one thing he would have

done, I say to the Minister of Education. We would have grabbed the bull by the horns.

Next question: The federal Minister of Finance was in Labrador recently

for a fundraising dinner. When asked the direct question: Were there any representations

made by this provincial government to the federal Department of Finance for tax incentives

with respect to expanding the operation in Labrador West? The answer was again, no. No

representations made by this government on behalf of its people, particularly in Labrador

West and on behalf of the people of the Province.

Next question for the Minister of Finance to answer: Right now in

Labrador West the production of IOCC is at half, 50 per cent - the first time since

1991-1992. People in this House have been accused - and in particular myself and my

colleagues - of fearmongering. Every issue we raise in this House we talk about

fearmongering, while capacity and production is declining in Labrador West. Engineering

work is moving at a rate, flat out in Sept-Iles. The refurbishing of that Sept-Iles plant

is taking place. Mr. Speaker, the concern is legitimate and it has never been answered by

this government. What happens because of an economic downturn? What happens? Is there a

commitment or a guarantee that has been sought from IOCC, that if an economic downturn

occurs, which it does regularly in cycles, that it will be the Sept-Iles plant that will

close down production and not Labrador West? Did this Premier or this provincial

government or this know-it-all minister on this issue, ask for that commitment? No, Mr.

Speaker. Never asked, never got it. You cannot get a commitment on our resources unless

you ask for it. That is what it is.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us apply another litmus test, two weeks ago in

this House we passed amendments to the Mineral Act, that we supported on this side of the

House for the most part, that said to a company coming into this Province to exploit our

resources, that it will be done on our terms, no one else's. I ask the minister: Did this

government take that piece of legislation and apply it to IOCC?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. E. BYRNE: No, Mr. Speaker, they did not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: Had we been there and passed that legislation, that

would have been done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: Next question: In the last three to four weeks, the

leadership in that region, the President of the Chamber of Commerce, the Mayor of Wabush,

the Mayor of Labrador City, representatives from the union, have written consistently to

this government requesting answers to commitments that have not yet been made, commitments

made that they would be given the answer. To date, no answers, I say to the minister.

One last comment for the Minister of Education. Before you stand up on

this petition, on this particular issue, you go back and find the answers. You come back

to this House and show this House, and through it the people of the Province, where your

government stood up for the people in Labrador West on this particular issue or any other

issue in this Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, rise to support this petition. I have spoken on this petition

several times before, here in this House. I do not get carried away by the Minister of

Education who is trying to twist statements that I have made here in this House at all.

The facts speak for themselves. We want to develop the resources of this Province for the

benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and they are applying a double standard, one

for Inco and another one for IOCC, for North Limited. It is a different standard.

I say to the minister, John Le Boutillier, on October 27, would not

give any assurances that Labrador City would not continue to be the primary pellet

producer - would not give assurance - and we allow an export of jobs of our resources that

are going to last for 120 years. We talk about $170 million over the 120 years; $1,500,000

a year is what it averages, allowing the company to rape the resources of our Province.

No, the Premier said: We won't allow Inco to do it - a smelter and

refinery here in our Province - but we will allow IOCC to do it. I do not see the

difference, I say to the minister, I do not see the difference. Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians do not see the difference. The only ones who see a difference are on that

side of the House. It is a double standard. How can you speak one day out of one side of

your mouth and speak the next day out of the other side of your mouth? That is what is

happening in this instance. That is what is happening.

They do not have a defence. They have no defence in what they are

doing. That is why they tried to attack, misconstrue and twist statements that we make on

this side of the House, and that is not correct. I do not see any defence, why Inco should

be allow - and I supported it from day one, the stand the Premier took on Inco and we

applauded as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We are not going to allow the resources -

we have seen it, the Upper Churchill. It is enough to make everybody in this Province

squirm at the billions of dollars we give away. And to allow a separatist premier of this

country to make an announcement to kick-off his election in Quebec on the backs of

resources of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is unacceptable.

The gall of the leaders of our Province here - ministers sitting around

Cabinet - to allow that to happen. They should hold out. I do not care what the national

people think about the Premier and his tough stands. I do not care what they write in the Financial

Post , or the National Post or The Globe and Mail . I do not care

what they write.

He was elected to represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

and he should. He did not go on a plane to North. He did not jump on a plane to Australia.

He jumped on a plane instead to Vancouver to raise money for his leadership. That is where

he went. ( Inaudible) the people of the Province. He has to start realizing we have to

fight. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador will support action on behalf of the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador. They will support it. Their support came out on the Inco

stand, all over the place. Then, to undermine the credibility of that decision on Inco -

AN HON. MEMBER: Slow down.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Humber East does not have to tell me

to slow down, I can tell you; a member who stated publicly, and was quoted in the media,

and I have a copy of it here, that he was sandbagged by the Premier. You will always be

back in that seat you are in now today, I can tell the Member for Humber East. You can

forget the front benches if they are saying the Premier sandbagged you, I can tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Does the Member for Torngat think we should be

sending his iron ore out to Sept-Iles? Does the Member for Humber East think that is

right? If you do, stand up and speak. We cannot get you to stand up and speak on the

issue. All you do is yap across the House when we are speaking on the issue. Stand up. You

have a couple of point men to get up and deflect all statements there. The Minister of

Education is the designate during this session of the House to do that. He is the

designate there to try to twist and warp and change statements.

The simple issue is this: Why are you not applying government policy

and legislation equitably to all companies that are in trying to take a resource out of

this Province?

I see no difference in scaling an upscale and more production from a

resource than starting a new resource in another location. It is extra outport we are

looking at from a resource that we have, and extra processing of that resource, the

pelletizing of that, and there are no assurances. He said verbally, it is not going to be

affected, the pellet plant that we currently have in Labrador - verbal. Where is the

writing? Where is the agreement? It has no authority, no value at all in a court of law

whatsoever, what a president of a company said back in 1998 in five or ten or fifteen

years time, or much sooner than that, when you see a scale down and you are looking at the

value and remarkably of a certain pellet. We will be reading in the future about how a

pellet from Sept-Iles is superior. There is a demand there, there is no market niche for

this one here. We have a higher demand. We are going to increase production at Sept-Iles

and we are going to shut down production in Labrador City.

We have given away the rights to be able to maximize the return from

our resources. We have 40,000 less people here over the last five years in this Province -

541,000 - and the number is going down. I would not doubt now but in the next count it

will be down in the 530-some thousand. Newfoundlanders away working -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the intervention from both the Leader of the Opposition -

the official Leader of the Opposition and the unofficial Leader of the Opposition who

probably should still be the Leader of the Opposition.

All he did was verify what I said. They raised their voices, they

talked a little louder than normal, but they said the same thing. Because the effect of

the representation by the Leader of the Opposition about going down and look for wage

subsidies and all of those kinds of things means the other view that I did not get a

chance to finish the last time, that one of the propositions put forward by the government

is that if there is a $170 million difference, or a $250 million difference, that we

should give them the money.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland just said you can pretend it is only

a couple of million dollars a year for 100 years and it is insignificant. The fact of the

matter is that there is a billion dollar expansion going to go ahead in the next couple of

years in Labrador West. Private investors, through a company, are going to spend the money

in the next two years, and if somebody is going to make up the difference they have to

give the cash in the next two years. The government would have to buy the expansion of

taking $250 million worth of taxpayers' money and giving it to the company for the

expansion.

They know, if they were the government, they would not do that, because

every time I ask: Is that what you would do? They say: No, that is not what you do. Mr.

Speaker, that is the affect of it.

Again, he talked about the fact that if you are not going to do that -

in some effect, if the company makes a decision with private sector investors' money to do

something, and the government says: No, you cannot do it, you cannot spend your money. If

we could find a way to do that, all we have in effect done is to take the suggestion of

the unofficial Leader of the Opposition, which is in effect make them leave the ore in the

ground.

Then nobody has any advantage. There is no expansion to the mining

operation in Labrador West, there is no expansion to the pellet plant in Labrador West,

because the commitments that are given are that the floatation plant in Sept-Iles will not

be reactivated. The direct reduction pellets, which are the growth sector of the industry,

will be developed in Labrador West and produced there, not in Sept-Iles. The company is

continuing with its no layoff policy. The Minister of Mines and Energy has asked the

company again - and they are meeting with the company in the very near future - to commit

in writing to the whole notion that if there is an economic turndown they will keep

Labrador City open and shut down or slow down Sept-Iles.

The question is this, and this is what the Opposition refuses to deal

with: What happens no matter how many times and how many times we ask that question, they

still say: No, I am not saying that.

Now you have got to be able to find a legal way to stop them from doing

the expansion. The only question I have been asking is: Would the members opposite please

tell me - other than breaking their own law and incurring massive lawsuits for the

taxpayers of the Province, or buying the jobs by taking $250 million immediately in the

next year or two, or trying to enforce the policy of leaving it in the ground and

suggesting you cannot ship concentrate out of Labrador West, which means you immediately

shut down Wabush completely - what they would suggest? With any of those options they know

that the alternatives are not at all anything that anybody in the Province, including the

people in Labrador West, would want to deal with.

When they offer a viable alternative - because we cannot find one at

the present time - we will gladly enact it. Because we want the jobs and the maximum

benefits for Labrador West more than anybody, but we are not about to go and try to play

politics with it for the sake of trying to be on the winning side of some kind of an

argument, or the popular side of some kind of an argument, just because they are so

desperate to find something that somebody supports them in.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to speaking to this issue again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to rise and present a petition in the House on

behalf of 1,500 residents of the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair asking the

government to continue their support and support them in their need for a highway and

continue to proceed with this project on schedule.

This petition was circulated in a number of communities across the

district, and they have all supported the prayer of this petition which I would like to

read into Hansard:

WHEREAS in recent months there has been a great deal of controversy

surrounding the Trans-Labrador Highway - we have heard opposition to this development from

the Innu Nation, and have heard various perspectives from the Metis Nation - the people in

communities that are directly affected by this development seem to take second stage to

those environmentalists and lobbyists; and

WHEREAS there are fundamental issues that will provide the framework

for discussion, especially the St. Lewis link and the services for the communities that

will not be connected to this highway, these issues can and will be mapped out over the

course of this new development. It is not our intent that the Trans-Labrador Highway be

delayed while these decisions are being made; and

WHEREAS employment issues for people adjacent to this development have

to be addressed immediately to ensure significant, sufficient employment benefits accrue

to Labrador people who qualify for positions that may become available; and

WHEREAS we do not wish to see any unnecessary delays in this

development and it is therefore the wish of the undersigned that this project move forward

immediately;

THEREFORE we are petitioning government to partner with community

groups to deal with the issue of local employment in the immediate and the long-term

issues of economic and social infrastructure for our communities, comprising a joint

committee made up of zonal board representatives in the zone who will enable us to move

forward with this development, ensuring maximum benefits at the end of the day for all.

Mr. Speaker, the people in communities of my district feel compelled to

make their position on this issue clear to ensure that this project proceeds on schedule.

It has taken twenty years of hard work and lobbying on behalf of many people in Coastal

Labrador to finally get to this point in our history, the point where our communities will

be released from isolation and given free access to each other and the rest of the

country.

The communities of Coastal Labrador went through a recession in the

early 1990s like the rest of the country. They have suffered major economic and social

setbacks as a result of the fishery closure. Today this highway is giving them and their

communities an opportunity to expand and rebuild. It is giving them the opportunity to

ensure sustainable industry development, and the opportunity to be a competitive player in

the nation's trade and development practices.

Most importantly, and we should stress this, it is the opportunity to

build stronger, viable communities to ensure a homeland for future generations of

southeast coast Labradorians. It is also the opportunity for the people who want to stay

in that area and choose to live in that area to be able to do so at a pace that is

convenient for them.

The people feel they are being challenged by others in Labrador with

regard to this development. The EIS process, as we all know, allows for input from all

people, and we respect that right. However, recent opinions expressed in the media and

through other forms by the Innu Nation and the Metis Nation have caused concern for people

all along the Coast of Labrador, as is evident from this petition to the House of Assembly

today.

I want to point out that we on the Coast of Labrador respect the rights

of the Aboriginal people in our society, those who live in our communities and adjacent to

our communities. The Innu Nation has no land claims in the area that is being proposed by

this highway, the

section of road between Cartwright and Red Bay. What we would say to the

Innu Nation, as communities and people that are affected, is to show the same level of

respect and support for the people in our communities and in our regions in trying to deal

with the economic challenges that face us, and to show us the same support and respect to

the degree that we have shown them in dealing with the social challenges in their

communities, the support that we have given to the Innu Nation in rebuilding the community

of Sango Bay and in other projects.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say to the Metis Nation and the Metis

Nation Board of Directors and leaders -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: Can I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, just a few seconds to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Metis Nation: Listen to

your membership, because they are the people who are represented in this petition today.

They are the same communities and the same members that your organization stands and

supports. They have signed this petition. They are giving direction to the organization.

Although we welcome them as a partner in this process, we do not welcome them as an

impediment to such a crucial and important development across Labrador.

I am going to try and clue up, but I want to ask that the government

immediately embark on a process with the leaders in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair, the community councils, the economic development boards and others, to develop the

best services and infrastructure that can be implemented to service these communities. The

people of Coastal Labrador do not want to see this road prolonged unnecessarily. They feel

that the economic and social issues that have to be dealt with will be dealt with over the

course of this development, to everyone's satisfaction.

I ask that the other groups who have expressed interest and opposition

to this particular development understand the plea of the people in the District of

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and in particular, in the communities from Lodge Bay to

Cartwright, and respect the wishes of those people as they move forward with this

development to deal with the economic challenges that have faced their community today and

in the past. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in the House today to fully support the petition put forward by

the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. The only regret I have about the petition put

forward is that the road is not going to be built in my riding. Certainly, coming from a

rural community in Coastal Labrador, I fully understand the hardships that both the riding

of Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair and my riding have encountered in the past years with the

transportation of getting fish to the market on time. Usually we have to send it out by

boat, which takes a lot longer, and it certainly slows down the whole process and

interferes with the whole operation.

I fully support the member's request and certainly I, representing the

riding of Torngat Mountains, will talk to some of the members in the Innu nation to do

whatever is possible to try and get all parties to the table, to sit down with government

and to do what is right. Certainly land claims play a very important role, but I believe

it is time for all parties to come to the table and address these problems in fair manner

and a quick manner.

I can assure the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair and the people

in her riding that I will certainly ask government to do that. I support her resolution. I

guess until people fully understand the difficulty in trying to get things done in Coastal

Labrador where there are no roads, then I hope that all members in the House here can only

support the petition put forward. Again, I support it wholeheartedly. To the Member for

Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, I will certainly support you in every way.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to stand

for a few minutes today to fully support the petition put forward by the Member for

Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

Whenever we talk about Labrador, and the two members who have just

spoken know better than anybody what this means in the development of Labrador, in the

`big land' as we call it, for so many years. We are right on the threshold now of some

very positive developments for Labrador in the coming years, of course, with economic and

social developments and so on.

It is so important that we get together and, as the member said, with

the respect of the Aboriginal (inaudible) nature, that we come together and expedite this

whole process so that it is done fairly and is done so that everyone can be in compliance

with exactly what needs to be done here; but, at the end of the day, that this does not

drag on and on, so that the economic and social development of Labrador can take place.

I fully support, and our caucus fully supports, the member in her

pursuit of this - to do it as fast as possible and as fair as possible but, one way or

another, to speed up the process so that it is not dragged for a long time so these

benefits are lost to the people of Labrador. This road system is long overdue. In speaking

to the people of the Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair area - I have spoken to them many times

on visits to the area - I understand how important this is for further development in this

particular area, and also how important it is for the well-being of the Member for Torngat

Mountains.

I fully support you in your efforts, and hopefully we will come to a

conclusion to this in the not-too-distant future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Can I get leave to speak for just a minute or two on

this?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly pleased to speak on behalf of this petition here today.

We, on this side of the House, have worked long and hard to ensure that the funding was

made available for the kinds of development that we have had here in this petition. It has

been a long time coming and I certainly support the fact that we cannot wait any longer to

see the development that we need on the South Coast.

Many communities are suffering on the coast because of the

transportation network. This kind of development is the type of development that will

ensure the security of the communities that are along the South Coast of Labrador for the

next many years.

As part of the government that has gone out and gotten the funding that

we require to build this portion of the road, I believe it is not the kind of issue we

need to be discussing when groups are looking for control. The environmental process is in

place to take care of the environmental concerns that we have. There are many processes in

place that will handle those kinds of issues.

Mr. Speaker, I believe, now that we have the funding for this

particular highway, I want to see - and I believe all members of this House want to see -

the development of this particular highway take place starting this year, this coming

construction season.

We have laid out a construction program for this year and next year,

and I believe it would be very detrimental if we have to wait an extra year because the

funding is all based on the premise that we start this year the process of building an

all-year highway and then we can reduce the cost of the shipping that we have to pay for

right now so that we will ensure ourselves we will have the money to do it, if we can do

it this year.

I would support the petition in the sense that I will also be talking,

along with the Member for Torngat Mountains, with the groups that are having a problem

with allowing this to go ahead. I think we should all support those kinds of developments

because it is progressive for our people and especially the people on the Southern Coast

of Labrador, as they will be in the stream of advancement towards much better forms of

transportation with the highway linkage.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. DECKER: Motions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

MR. SPEAKER: Motions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act". (Bill No. 51)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to

introduce the following bills:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act." (Bill

No. 45)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act (No.2)". (Bill

No. 49)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Imposition Of A Charge Related To

The Provision Of Certain Government Services". (Bill No. 52)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act,

1991". (Bill No. 54)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Home Support Services Provided To

Persons In Self-Managed Care". (Bill No. 56)

On motion, Bill Nos. 51, 45, 49, 52, 54 and 56 read a first time,

ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am going to call second reading on Order

13. The Minister of Finance should he should be here shortly.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have been abandoned, Chris.

MR. DECKER: I have been abandoned. In that case I will call Order

17,

An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act. I am sure I am here, so I will speak to

that bill.

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

Enforcement Act." (Bill No. 34).

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, since coming into force approximately a

year-and-a-half ago, the Judgement Enforcement Act has been a success. The act sets out a

comprehensive statutory framework for executing on money judgements, something that

Newfoundland previously lacked, and provides for procedural and administrative machinery,

and an up-to-date computerized registry necessary for the effective and efficient

enforcement processes.

During the implementation process however, a number of issues - largely

technical in nature - that require additional clarifications have arisen.

For the information of the House, these issues include such things as:

clarification of a number of

definitions to make the act consistent with similar

legislation in other jurisdictions; for example, the Alberta Civil Enforcement Act. The

clarification of the process for the registration of federal court orders on the judgement

enforcement registry; clarification of the process by which creditors can obtain

information from debtors as to their ability to satisfy judgements against them;

amendments which allow the court to vary an income exemption certificate by taking into

account the family responsibilities and personal situation of the debtor, and

clarification of provisions dealing with limitation periods under the act.

The bill addresses all of these housekeeping issues. The proposed

amendment is consistent with the original policy objectives of the act as passed in

December of 1996 and proclaimed June 1. There are no new policy issues raised in this

amendment.

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

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

Bill No. 34,

An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act.

As the minister indicated, a number of months ago new legislation was

introduced and passed in this House dealing with a reform with respect to judgement

enforcement in this Province. What it does is essentially both codifies and eases the

circumstances surrounding the enforcement of judgements in this Province, and benefits

that accrued to, I guess, judges, the Sheriff's Office, solicitors, and the public at

large.

The act was passed in December of 1996 and it enabled judgements and

allowed courts, I guess, through seizure and garnishment, to deal effectively with the

enforcement of judgements in this Province.

It was amended again in 1997, and is now being amended again to remove,

as the minister indicated, certain errors and anomalies, to clarify certain powers of

sheriffs and judges, and to facilitate the operation of the judgement enforcement system

created in this act.

The minister indicated that there was a computer component, I suppose,

involved in this amendment from the point of view that it helps facilitate as we progress

technologically. The act also had to change to reflect a better way to enforce judgements

in this Province and how these judgements can be best circulated, made public, and

essentially effected in the Province.

The Judgement Enforcement Act amendment is divided into fifteen parts.

Under sections 1-24 the general provisions; then a

section under pre-judgement relief,

sections 25-36; a provision under notice of judgement, sections 37-63; information

regarding enforcement, under sections 64 and 69; the seizure of personal property, under

sections 70-81; special seizure mechanisms, under sections 82 through to 99; dealing with

land, sections 100-109; garnishment, under sections 110-125; receivers and special

remedies, under sections 126 through to 128; exemptions, beginning with

section 129-149;

distribution, sections 150-158; disputes, sections 159-167; impeachable transactions,

under sections 168-180; then the regulation provisions, under sections 181-184; and then

the penalty provisions and other miscellaneous provisions, from 185 through to

section

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that this is an amendment. It

is an amendment to new legislation which passed approximately one year ago,

notwithstanding the fact that we have seen an amendment even since then, prior to this

particular amendment being introduced at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is generally agreed upon and felt by most

people in the legal community dealing with the enforcement of judgements, that this act

has been generally well received. It has helped particularly the Sheriff's Office, in

organizing in that particular office the whole role of the enforcement of judgements, and

consequently has benefit to the public at large.

There are a couple of sections in particular that I think are worth

referring to because they are specifically relating to this particular amendment, and it

refers to some of the definition sections. For example, the term `deposit account' is now

being changed from the following: a demand time, savings or saving passbook or similar

account at a bank. It is being changed to: a chequing/savings demand or similar account at

a bank, trust company, credit union or other deposit-taking institution in the Province

but does not include an account or arrangement under which money is deposited for a fixed

term, whether or not the term may be abridged, extended or renewed.

So we see here the beginning of the provision for not only dealing with

a demand or similar account at a bank but including as well a trust company, a credit

union, and not to exclude any deposit-taking institution. So again we see, I suppose,

simply an expansion of the legislation which is now law in this Province. We see an

expansion through this amendment to help not only, I guess, the sheriff's office, but the

public at large in dealing with the impact of this legislation.

We see for example, the definition of enforcement proceedings, even the

term judgement. As the minister indicated in his preliminary remarks, we see reference now

being made to the Small Claims Act and the Federal Court Act. Again, it is a widening of

the jurisdiction to meet, I guess, demands that this Province and the people in this

Province are now faced with.

In expanding that definition it is interesting to note that although

the definition of judgement is now expanded to include the Small Claims Act and the

Federal Court Act, it does not include a support order as defined in the Support Orders

Enforcement Act, except as provided in

section 13. So there is an exception to that

overall principal.

The term personal property registry is added, meaning the personal

property registry established under the Personal Property Security Act. We are awaiting

second reading and committee stage with respect to the Personal Property Security Act.

Once implemented, of course, by extension, we will then have the significance of the term

personal property registry as it relates to the Judgement Enforcement Act.

The term small claims creditor is added, in clause 1(5), meaning

"a creditor in whose favour there is a notice of judgement with respect to a money

judgement made under the Small Claims Act." Essentially we have a broadening of, I

guess, judicial jurisdiction as it relates to judgement enforcement to deal with the small

claims jurisdiction and the Federal Court Act, but excluding the provisions of support

orders.

There are a few other clauses I would like to refer to briefly. One is

under clause 4 of the legislation. It amends

section 16 of the Act regarding cause of

action by repealing paragraph (

b) below and making a substitution. I would just like to

refer to

section 16(1):

Except as otherwise provided in this Act, a person who has suffered

loss or damage as a result of another person's failure to comply with the Act has a cause

of action against the other person with respect to that failure and (

b) is entitled, if

the court finds that a loss or damage has been suffered, to a judgement for the damages

suffered or $200, whichever is greater.

Essentially, that would include almost all judgements when we look at

the amount of $200.

The substitution reads:

"(

b) is entitled, if the court or the Provincial Court where the

amount claimed does not exceed the jurisdictional limits of that court, finds that a loss

or damage has been suffered, to a judgement for the damages suffered or $200, whichever is

greater".

It is interesting to note that the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court

or Small Claims Court in this Province has not been amended for a significant period of

time. Right now the limit is still relatively small, and there is some pressure, I may

add, being placed on the department and on the minister to increase the jurisdiction so

that more matters can be heard in the Provincial Court. Because the Provincial Court is

designed to deal with the public on a day to day basis. Many people who appear in

Provincial Court, in the Small Claims Division, are unrepresented. The costs of

proceedings in the Small Claims Court are relatively minor compared to what can be very

expensive and costly proceedings for litigants once they go from the Provincial Court,

Small Claims Division, to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, Trial Division.

It is hoped that we may see an expansion in the not to distant future

to increase the limit, where we are dealing with liquidated damages, or contract, or

land-lord tenant law, or a dispute between a buyer and a seller. We would like to see an

increase in that limit so that more people may have access to small claims court and will

allow them to litigate differences and disputes, at the same time limiting the expenses

they are facing. Mr. Speaker, there would be an opportunity, I would suggest, in the near

future to have such changes made again for the betterment of the public at large.

Another clause I would like to refer to is clause 14. Clause 14 amends

section 65 of the act regarding the sheriff questionnaire by repealing the entire

section

and making a substitution. The

section currently reads as follow:

(1) A person who is required to submit to an examination under

Section 66 shall deliver a questionnaire to the sheriff regarding the matters upon which

they may be properly examined.

Under 65.(2), it says: A questionnaire under this Part shall be in the

required form.

The substitution in clause 14 reads as follows, under

section 65.(1):

"A creditor may instruct the sheriff to serve a questionnaire on a person who may be

required to submit to an examination under

section 66 to be completed and returned to the

sheriff for the purpose of determining the ability of the debtor to satisfy the claim of

the creditor."

Under

section 65.(2) it says: "A questionnaire under this Part

shall be in the required form."

Then the new section, under

section 65.(3), reads: "A person

served with a questionnaire under subsection (1) shall return the completed questionnaire

to the sheriff within 15 days of service."

There is now a time limitation that must be followed by anybody who is

dealing with the questionnaire with respect to the sheriff's office in terms of an

examination under

section 66. Of course, an examination under

section 66 deals with when a

party is simply to provide information to the sheriff's office with respect to property

that he or she may own, or assets that he or she may own, in response to a judgement which

has been filed against that particular individual.

Another clause worthy of some note is clause 20. It amends

section 121

of the Act regarding employment earnings by removing subsection 5 from the following

subsection.

Section 121(1) reads: Unless permitted under subsection 147.(5), a

garnishee order shall not be issued with respect to the debtor's employment earnings. The

word "subsection" should be changed to

section as well, since it refers to

Section 147. We see reference now being made to the impact that a judgement may have on

one's employment earnings.

Also in clause 21 we see reference again to deposit accounts. Under

section 123.(2): a garnishee order that attaches a joint account only attaches that

portion of the joint entitlement that is a current obligation.

There is some, I guess, investigative component to ensure that the only

component which is the subject matter of the litigation and the judgement itself does not

have an umbrella effect with respect to joint accounts that, of course, may be owned by

two or more people.

Under clause 23 we see amendments to

section 135 of the act regarding

other dispositions of exempt property. Subclause 1 repeals (2) below and makes the

following substitution. I now read

Section 135.(4):

where the sheriff approves the sale of property under subsection

(1) from the proceeds of the sale of the debtor is entitled to an amount equal to the lesser

of (

a) the net proceeds of the sale; (

b) the value of the exemption prescribed by

regulation for property of that type; and (

c) the value of the exemption prescribed by

regulation for property of that type, less the total of the value of the property, money

or deposit account that is exempt under paragraph 134(

a) with respect to the property of

that type and (2) the value of the property of that type which the debtor continues to

own.

The new paragraph (ii) reads: "the value of the property of that

type which the debtor continues to own, including property to which subsection (5)

applies."

Again we see an expansion and widening of property that is impacted by

this subsection presumably, in this case, to the benefit of the sheriff and any individual

trying to enforce the judgement.

The act I guess in many ways attempts to clarify anomalies which have

existed in the last twelve months. I know the High Sheriff of Newfoundland was quite

pleased I guess, in discussions I have had with him, in the fact that we have now a

codified Judgement Enforcement Act which attempts to simplify all proceedings with respect

to judgement enforcement in this Province. Generally speaking, it can be said that this

amendment only goes to further clarify the legislation, which is now twelve months old, in

an effort to expedite these proceedings, to meet, I guess, technological change, and to

presumably, in the long run, assist all parties in an effort to refine these proceedings,

which generally, historically and traditionally, have been quite difficult throughout this

Province. Now we have a codification of the law which ultimately should be a benefit to

all parties concerned.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak briefly on Bill 34,

An Act To Amend The Judgement

Enforcement Act. This is a piece of legislation which was presented in this House in

December of 1996. It was a very comprehensive piece of legislation changing the law with

respect to the enforcement of judgements against personal property and also to register

security interests in personal property affected by this legislation.

The whole issue of enforcement of judgement is a complex matter. It

involves an assessment of the rights of both creditors and debtors to the extent that the

law is trying to be fair between them. This legislation that was presented just a short

time ago was presented to the House as a comprehensive amendment to the legislation, as

something that was new. We certainly would have expected some fine tuning of the

legislation, but I am somewhat surprised to see some thirty-seven clauses, including in

excess of almost fifty amendments to the legislation. It does bring into question,

perhaps, the procedure that we are using in this House to actually vet new legislation of

this nature.

A number of years ago the House adopted rules which provided for

legislative committees to consider legislation. In some cases these committees have done

very good work. One would expect that a bill of this nature, with a fair degree of

technical actions involved in it, a fair degree of trying to achieve fairness between

debtor and creditor, would have been subjected to that kind of process. Perhaps some of

the people involved, such as the Sheriff's Office, such as the people from the Department

of Justice, such as people involved in the credit collection agencies, such as lawyers and

law society members who deal with clients and deal with questions of this nature, could

have been invited to participate and scrutinize the legislation, and perhaps reveal some

of the flaws at an earlier date.

It seems that we are not using this process. What we are doing in fact

is passing legislation, putting it out there, and having it test driven after it has been

passed, as opposed to be subjected to the right kind of scrutiny beforehand. I question

that in the first instance, because we do have a lot of changes here. I am not suggesting

that all of them are unnecessary. What I am suggesting is that perhaps some of them could

have been rendered unnecessary by a proper run through the first time and proper

consideration by the legislative committees of this House before it was passed.

Most of the amendments are of a technical nature. I am not going to

commend on a lot of them, but I want to comment on clause 13 of the act. I hope the

Minister of Justice is listening to my comments on that. This has to do with the provision

of questionnaires to creditors. The

section reads as follows. On the marginal notes, the

so-called marginal notes refer to something called voluntary questionnaires. That is in

the marginal note and not in the section, but the

section says as follows, "64.

(1) A

creditor may serve a questionnaire on the debtor to be completed and returned to the

creditor for the purpose of determining the ability of the debtor to satisfy the claims of

the creditor."

The next

section then says: "

(2) A debtor shall return the

completed questionnaire to the creditor within 15 days of service."

Then,

section 3, "A creditor shall provide the sheriff with a copy

of a questionnaire completed by a debtor at the time he or she issues first instructions

to the sheriff."

Mr. Speaker, this is clearly intended to be a voluntary process. Yet,

on the other hand, if you look at the

section without looking at the marginal note, it is

pretty clear that someone in a position of a creditor can, in fact, serve a document on a

creditor - this is someone who has a judgement against him - with a questionnaire. I have

seen them. I have had people call me complaining about it. They have received this

questionnaire. It comes from a lawyer and says: We are acting on behalf of so and so who

has a judgement against you. Enclosed please find the questionnaire which you are required

to return within fifteen days.

If they quoted them

section 64.(2) of the act, "A debtor shall

return the completed questionnaire to the creditor within 15 days of service."

I do not think it is fair to have included in the act a requirement of

a creditor to return a questionnaire which is rather detailed. I have seen these

questionnaires. They ask about all kinds of assets, debts and obligations of a creditor, a

whole series of questions which they must answer according to this. A debtor shall return

the completed questionnaire to the creditor within 15 days of service. That is a very

intimidating document, usually coming from a lawyer and quite often coming at the behest

of a credit agency who is using this legislation, or using the act, as part of its

collection process.

The legislation is very unclear. In the marginal note it says voluntary

questionnaire but there is nothing in the

section to indicate that the questionnaire is

voluntary at all. These questionnaires ask a great deal of personal information. I have

seen them. They are intimidating documents to receive. I think it should be made clear in

any questionnaire, or in the service of any questionnaire, that this questionnaire does

not have to be completed by the debtor and returned within fifteen days; that the

answering of this questionnaire is a voluntary process.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I know, if a constituent of the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture received a questionnaire in the mail because they owed $250 to somebody

who has a judgement against them by default or otherwise, with twenty-five or thirty

questions saying that you must fill out this questionnaire, send it back within fifteen

days to some lawyer who you never hear of before - how much money do you have in the bank?

Where are your bank accounts? How much money do you owe? What is your income? What is your

spouse's income? All this sort of stuff. And have some lawyer to be able to say: Well,

according to

section 64.(2) of the act, "A debtor shall return the completed

questionnaire to the creditor within 15 days of service."

That is not right. That is a voluntary process and it is indicated in

the marginal notes - little tiny words on the side of the legislation - not indicated in

the act. I have had people call me and say: I have this questionnaire. It comes from a

lawyer, and it says I have to fill it out and send it back.

I said: I do not think so. That does not sound right to me, a lawyer

writing you a letter, a lawyer you never heard of giving you a questionnaire saying: You

fill this out and send it back within fifteen days stating all of your assets and

liabilities, what money you have in the bank, and what accounts you have. It is not right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, what ought to be done in this legislation:

It should be required that any creditor sending such a questionnaire under this particular

section of the act, to a debtor, that there ought to be a requirement that the debtor be

notified that the completion of this questionnaire is, in fact, a voluntary process.

If that is not there, debtors, for whatever amount - and whether it is

a default judgement or whether it is a situation where they have fully been contested and

lost their case - can be intimidated by this process if otherwise.

I have seen some of the practices that are used in terms of collection.

It does not have to come from a lawyer. It could just come a credit agency serving this

thing, and they can put in big bold print on the front of a questionnaire: We are hereby

serving this questionnaire upon you in accordance with

section 64 of the Judgement

Enforcement Act.

Section 64.(2) says, "A debtor shall return the completed

questionnaire to the creditor within 15 days of service." They can legitimately quote

this act without telling people that the completion of a questionnaire in these

circumstances is a voluntary process, that they do not have to do it.

We have seen practices in this Province, collection practices by

collection agencies, intimidating practices. We have had to put in legislation to prevent

creditors and collection agencies from calling people at work and harassing them. We had

to put that legislation into effect to prevent that from happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible) to stop them.

MR. HARRIS: I am not sure it stops them. Laws do not necessarily

stop people but it provides for an enforcement against them if they do.

AN HON. MEMBER: It should stop them.

MR. HARRIS: It should stop them. Human Rights Codes do not

guarantee human rights either. Human Rights Codes do not guarantee that people's rights

will not be violated, whether it is outside of this House or in this House. They do not

guarantee that but they can provide guidelines and they can provide an enforcement

mechanism.

In this circumstance it is fundamentally wrong to provide an

opportunity to somebody who is unscrupulous - I am not castigating any group of people,

whether they be credit collectors in general or whether they be lawyers in general, or

whether they be members of this House in general. What I am saying is that this leaves an

opening to someone to abuse this

section and use it to intimidate creditors, to send them

a questionnaire.

Supposing you owed $50 to somebody - you did not pay your bill - and

they went and got a collection agency to get it. They get a judgement against you somehow

or other, and then you get a questionnaire and they can quote this act saying, "A

debtor shall return the completed questionnaire to the creditor within 15 days of

service." It is not required, yet the act clearly says, "A debtor shall return

the completed questionnaire to the creditor within 15 days of service."

Something is wrong here and I hope the Minister of Justice will either

amend it himself or accept an amendment at third reading which would require creditors in

these circumstances to serve a questionnaire on the debtor to be completed, returned for

the purpose of determining the ability of the debtor to satisfy the claims, but the

creditor must be notified, along with the service of that questionnaire, that this is a

voluntary process. That has to happen if it is not going to be unfair to creditors in

these circumstances.

When we are looking at these kinds of rules, they may be highly

technical in natural, they may be for arcane activities of bureaucracies for enforcement,

of bureaucracies for keeping records, of lawyers and enforcements processes and all of

that stuff - the Sheriff's Office and his staff down there trying to understand the act

and apply the act - but there are lots of issues of fairness that are involved in

enforcing judgements. Because an enforcement of a judgement means that this is a legal

right of someone to collect debts by taking your assets, by going to the bank and telling

the bank - if you, Mr. Speaker, had money in an account, saying: Don't give that money to

the Speaker; give that to me, the creditor.

This legislation gives them the right to do that type of thing, to come

and take your property, take your motor vehicle, take your personal possessions, up to a

certain point. These are very, very serious issues of property rights, of fairness as

between people who have judgement against others.

We are not talking about the kind of run-of-the mill issue of someone

who goes to court and one company gets a judgement against another company. These people

are quite capable of having legal representation and fight it out in the courts and pay

lawyer's bills to look after their interests in disputes with other companies, with other

individuals, whether it is insurance companies or big business operations.

This Judgement Enforcement Act is used against every creditor,

including very small bills that are being collected - $100, $200, $300, $500 - through the

Small Claims Court process, as a means, a mechanism, of actually collecting the money, in

many cases, off people who may well not be able to afford to pay. They might not even be

able to afford to go bankrupt.

I don't know if you know, Mr. Speaker, that it costs money to go

bankrupt in this Province, in this country. If you do not have $1,000 or $1,200 to pay to

an accountant to help you go bankrupt, you cannot go bankrupt. Some people actually cannot

afford to go bankrupt because they do not have the money to pay an accountant to declare

them bankrupt.

I know the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture finds that laughable,

that there are people who cannot afford -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: No, no, I find it laughable to say that somebody cannot

afford to go bankrupt. That is laughable. I think it is laughable, but there are a lot of

people in this Province who owe very small debts, who cannot afford to pay them, who

cannot afford to fight against unfair processes that are taken out against them because

they do not have the means of hiring a lawyer to act in their interests, and it is not a

matter that will be looked after by Legal Aid.

So the protection of those people has to come from this Legislature. It

has to come from the laws that are there, designed to be fair to people and to provide

protection to all citizens of this Province, not just those of the Member for Deer Lake,

not just those of the member who represents Deer Lake. They are there to represent and

protect all people.

I would like the minister to consider that, along with his officials,

to have a good look at clause 13 of the legislation and consider what ought to be put in

place to ensure that creditors are not led to believe that there is a statutory

requirement for them to fill out this questionnaire when in fact that is not the case. I

think that is important.

There are some positive things. Along the same line, I recognize that

the amendment attempts to be fair and reasonable in circumstances such as clause 27 of the

act which allows the sheriff to deal with fluctuating incomes for people. If you have a

creditor who has a monthly repayment

schedule in place, based on an income exemption that

is spelled out in the act, often the payment

schedule is -

MR. DECKER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, you have not announced any questions for

the Late Show, so I'm assuming there aren't any q