May 9, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No.

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome to

the gallery today twelve Level III students from Regina High School, Corner

Brook, in the District of Humber West, accompanied by their teacher, Paul

Quigley.

As well, I have six students I would like to welcome from Holy Heart of Mary

Regional High School in the District o f St. John's East, accompanied by their

teacher, Katherine Henderson.

The Chair would also like to welcome to the gallery today, thirteen members

of the Mount Pearl Women's Institute, in the District of Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to rule on a point of order raised

by the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley on March 21 with respect to the use

of the sub judice convention in the House to block questions. On March 15, a

question was ruled out of order on the basis of the convention; the matter, a

civil case, being still before the courts since the judge had not rendered his

decision.

As the hon. Member for Waterford Valley states, the convention exists to

ensure that matters discussed in the House do not infringe on the rights of

parties awaiting or undergoing trial. In the case referred to by the hon. the

member, an injunction had been sought and the judge's decision was still

pending.

The Chair would like to point out, with respect to the references - without

repeating, of course, the references cited by the hon. member - that the

convention exists to protect parties to judicial action, civil and criminal,

although it is invoked more readily in criminal cases or those in which

reputations are at stake. In questions relating to civil actions, Speakers have

ruled both ways. In the case of the contract which was the subject of review in

the matter at hand, the Chair, in the time available, reviewed the information

presented and concluded that it would be more prudent to rule the question out

of order. The ruling applies in that particular case, of course.

The Chair uses its discretion in deciding whether or not to allow a question,

and decides each individual case on its merits. If the Chair is called upon to

rule on a matter of sub judice again, the matter will be reviewed in light of

the information available and the Chair will again exercise its discretion,

always keeping in mind the rights of all interested parties including Members of

the House of Assembly.

As well, on March 27, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services

raised a point of privilege concerning the words spoken by the hon. the

Opposition House Leader outside the House on March 23, 2000, which the minister

alleges contradicts statements made in the House approximately a year earlier.

The point of privilege is that the hon. the member is lying to the House if the

alleged contradictory statements made outside the House are true.

Honourable members know that one cannot accuse another member of lying to the

House. The suggestion that a member has lied is unparliamentary and, of course,

must be withdrawn. To misrepresent is not a matter of privilege, but of order.

Deliberately to mislead would be a breach of privilege, but a member would have

to admit intentionally in misleading the House. In this case, the claim of

breach of privilege is based on a statement made outside the House. A statement

made outside the House cannot be the basis of a claim of breach of privilege.

In the case we are dealing with, we cannot say that the hon. the Opposition

House Leader intended to mislead the House. It appears to the Chair that he is

expressing his opinion about the extent and the causes of what he considers to

be a certain problem. It is the Chair's opinion that the matter on several

counts is not a matter of privilege but is more in the realm of a difference of

opinion between two hon. members.

The Chair would remind hon. members at this point that quite often privilege

is used as a vehicle to raise a question of order, or merely to apprize the

House of something that members consider important.

The Chair would like to take this opportunity to remind hon. members of

Beauchesne's statement in 27, "A question of privilege ought rarely to

come up in Parliament... A genuine question of privilege is a most serious

matter and should be taken seriously by the House."

I would now like to ask the hon. the Minister of Health and Community

Services to withdraw his statements made on that particular day.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, in line with the ruling, I gladly withdraw those

comments.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great sadness that I rise to pay tribute to a great

Newfoundlander, Mr. Arthur Lundrigan, who passed away yesterday in Corner Brook

at the age of seventy-seven years.

In recognition of his lifetime achievements and his significant contributions

to the development of businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Arthur,

together with his brother, Harold, was inducted into the Newfoundland and

Labrador Business Hall of Fame on Thursday of just last week. There they joined

their father, the late William J. Lundrigan, who was previously inducted into

the Hall in 1990.

While others will describe the many accomplishments of Mr. Arthur and those

of the Lundrigan family, what I choose to remember here today is a man who was

the very personification of the word gentleman, and a man who had a big heart

and an abiding love of all things; Newfoundland and Labrador in general, and the

City of Corner Brook in particular.

In my opinion, nothing better exemplified his approach to business than a

conversation I had with him just prior to his suffering a major stroke which

severely incapacitated him a few years ago.

At that time, production was down at the cement plant. In fact, it was down

to the point where it was only marginally profitable. In fact, it was widely

known that North Star Cement could substantially improve its profit margin if it

closed down the plant and sold cement imported in bulk from larger Canadian

and/or offshore producers. When I asked why he had not pursued this option, he

quietly but very firmly informed me that for him this was not an option. It was

not an option because of the sixty-five men and women whose livelihood depended

upon their jobs at the plant.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MERCER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MERCER: For me, this spoke volumes about his commitment to his

employees and to his community, and helped explain to me why he was so highly

regarded by his employees and his business colleagues alike.

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

extending deepest condolences to Mr. Arthur's widow, Ida, and to all members

of the extended Lundrigan family on the passing of a true patriot, Mr. Arthur

Raymond Lundrigan.

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

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to

congratulate six students from Marystown Central High School on receiving

scholarship awards from Memorial University totaling over $60,000.

Jane Hurley won Memorial's Alumni Association Scholarship valued at

$25,000, while Erin Glavine and Adam McCarthy received a Dr. Leslie Harris

Memorial Alumni Association Scholarship valued at $16,000 each.

William Cheeseman, Terri Hannam and Tara Emberley each received Memorial

University of Newfoundland entrance scholarships valued at $2,000 each.

Mr. Speaker, because of these achievements, these students will be allowed to

register first for courses in both the fall and winter semesters while some have

also been guaranteed a place in the University residence. It is another example

of how students in this Province are working hard to achieve their career goals,

and exemplifies the importance of doing well in school.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to inform

hon. members that this afternoon I will introduce, for first reading, a bill to

create a new Urban and Rural Planning Act for the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

This new act has been developed in close consultation with key stakeholders

and I would like to recognize the representatives of these key stakeholder

groups who are in the gallery today: Mayor Derm Flynn, President of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities; Mr. Mike Pinsent, Past

President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Municipal

Administrators; and Dr. Patricia Hempstead, Executive Director of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities.

This new Act will give municipalities greater freedom, flexibility and

autonomy to effectively manage their own affairs. The Urban and Rural Planning

Act will allow for public input and it has an appeals process whereby

development decisions can be subjected to an independent review.

I have an information package for all members so that they will be well

prepared to debate this new legislation, and therefore I will provide a more

detailed analysis at that time of the introduction and at second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of her statement beforehand. I

welcome the news with respect to the creation of a new Urban and Rural Planning

Act. I also welcome to the House, of course, Mr. Flynn, Mr. Pinsent, and Dr.

Hempstead.

The minister says: "The new Act will give municipalities greater

freedom, flexibility and autonomy to effectively manage their own affairs."

That is something I have been fighting for when I was a critic for municipal

affairs and when I was a mayor of a small town for seven years.

I think it is something that the people that serve on these councils that are

in the forefront and they usually know what is best for the people in their

small municipalities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, just to clue up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: I would like to reserve comment with respect to the

information package. The devil is usually in the details and I would just

reserve comment until I receive the information package.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We welcome a new Act and the participation and presence today of Mayor Flynn,

Mr. Pinsent, and Dr. Hempstead. I look forward to reviewing the matter.

There is, of course, a balance to be achieved between autonomy of

municipalities and provincial interests which sometimes can override local

decisions where matters are of a great provincial importance in Urban and Rural

Planning. So we look forward to seeing the details of the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform my hon. colleagues that

sixteen additional Community Access Centres have been established in nine

communities throughout the Province in the past year. Those communities include

Cap St.-Georges, Eastport, Franois, Gambo, Greenspond, McCallum, Upper Island

Cove, Westport and St. John's.

That brings to 121 the total of Community Access Centres in 109 communities

in Newfoundland and Labrador. These sites provide public access to the Internet

and the guidance to use it effectively. They help Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians develop their computer skills, access government information and

education programs, and communicate knowledge and ideas with others.

Not only do people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador benefit from this

technological resource, but the program also provides jobs for young people.

Through the financial participation of the Department of Human Resources and

Employment access centres across the Province will offer 110 new job

opportunities. One hundred youth interns will work for ten to twelve weeks,

while a further ten will act as regional coordinators. Together they will

introduce the public to the Internet to show how to use it effectively.

Placements within a community access centre offer youth a chance to develop

skills in marketing, promotions and research. They will also gain experience in

technical and practical skills such as teaching, training, group facilitation

and web page design, which are all in very high demand into today's job

market.

The Community Access Program strongly supports the goals of the Strategic

Social Plan. A community access centre supports community capacity building. It

is a "grass roots" community service run by volunteers and community

leaders. It is a powerful new way for communities to improve their social and

economic development. By supporting this initiative we are endorsing the efforts

of people who are making their communities better places in which to live and

work.

Funding for the centres is provided under the Canada-Newfoundland and

Labrador Community Access Program. The program is joint initiative of the

federal and provincial governments to help people in communities across

Newfoundland and Labrador achieve the economic and social benefits that are

available through the information highway. It is part of an initiative by the

federal government to make Canada the most connected country in the world.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the minister, thank you for an advance copy of the statement. I join with

the minister, as we all do on this side of the House, in certainly looking at

this as a very positive step. The importance of connecting to the information

highway certainly has been an initiative for the last number of years. To

provide better access to these communities is a very positive thing; also with

regard to the job opportunities.

A little word of caution, I say, minister, in looking at the sites. There has

been some difficulty with people, especially young people, accessing too much

information and in the wrong areas. I do hope that precautions have been taken

to make sure that the proper blocks are in place for these particular sites.

It is a positive initiative and one which we certainly support.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly pleased with the news of expanding access to the Internet.

There is, of course, in this Province, as we struggle with basic literacy, also

the possibility of a coming knowledge gap and technology gap, especially in

small rural parts of the Province.

I look forward to the day when the minister can stand in this House and say

that access to the Internet is available in every community of this Province,

and I hope that comes soon. I am glad that there is also going to be other

support for allowing people to learn how to make use of this new information

technology.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Department of Justice and

government, and I am sure all members of this House, I rise today to bring

condolences to the family of the late Provincial Court Judge Joseph LeClair who

passed away suddenly on Sunday, May 7.

Judge LeClair was born in Alberta on February 21, 1939,and originally came to

Newfoundland with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He was appointed magistrate

in August, 1972, and later attended Dalhousie University Law School from which

he graduated in May, 1978. Judge LeClair was admitted to the Law Society of

Newfoundland and Labrador in December, 1981, and during his career Judge LeClair

presided over courts in St. John's, Bell Island, Ferryland, Harbour Grace,

Holyrood and Whitbourne. He retired from the bench in November, 1997.

Judge LeClair made a significant contribution to the administration of

justice in the Province. He served the public with intelligence, compassion and

balance. His steadfast dedication to the ideals of our system of justice earned

him the respect of the Bar, the general public, and all who appeared before him.

Judge LeClair is survived by his wife, Gertrude, and three sons, Joseph Jr.,

Paul and Jason. I would ask that a letter be issued from the House expressing

our condolences to the LeClair family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf on my colleagues on this side of the House, we wish to associate

ourselves with the remarks made by the minister on behalf of the government. I

personally did not have the privilege of knowing the late Provincial Court Judge

LeClair. I note from the minister's statement that he retired from the bench

in November, 1997. Of course, that was the same year that I graduated from law

school so I did not have the privilege of knowing him like perhaps some of my

other colleagues might in the House.

I do know, from hearing from people in the profession, that Judge LeClair was

a stalwart of justice in our judicial system. I know he served with distinction

in many jurisdictions throughout the Province.

In a personal way I do know something of the family, I suppose, in a sense

that his son is a teacher at Beaconsfield High School and our daughter,

Margaret, is a student of his.

We certainly would want to associate ourselves with the remarks made by the

minister in sending the condolences of this Legislature to the family of the

late Provincial Court Judge LeClair.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the minister and the Member for Lewisporte in

acknowledging the career and service to the Province of Provincial Court Judge

LeClair. As a lawyer, I had appeared before him on many occasions in provincial

court and he is certainly known to me, in my experience, and the reputation he

had for fairness and understanding of human nature, which is a great asset to a

court circumstance. Judge LeClair was known for that and he had a very fine

human side to him. It is very unfortunate that so soon after his retirement he

has passed away and I would like to join with others in sending our condolences

to Judge LeClair's family.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to, I guess, the apologetic Minister of Health and

Community Services. Our health care system, I say to the minister, is under

attack. The waiting lists have never been longer for almost every medical

procedure. Surgeries are cancelled almost daily and people cannot get admitted

to hospitals because so many beds have closed even though doctors feel the

person should be admitted. Patients are held for several weeks in various

hospitals around this Province because no bed is available in St. John's,

either to get the appropriate diagnosis or to perform the appropriate surgery.

I want to ask the minister: What is he doing to ensure that people who need

surgery and appropriate medical attention will have access to it?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While someone might listen to the Opposition health critic and get a

particular view of health care in Newfoundland and Labrador, there is another

side to the story. The fact of the matter is that in Newfoundland and Labrador

today, in May of the year 2000, we are providing more services in a wider

variety of areas and covering off more specialities and more specialty

treatments in more physical locations and sites in this Province than we ever

have in our history.

Now it is a fact that expectations are very high and that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, regardless of where they live, have come to believe and expect -

largely led by people like the Opposition, suggesting that if they were the

government they would have a hospital in every town, they would have a service

in every single community, in all 600 communities, largely because politicians

in Opposition parties are willing to play politics with health care. That is

largely what drives much of the agenda, but the reality is that we have done

more, we have committed more funding to health care than ever in the history of

the Province. We are providing a broader range of services.

There are some changes that occur around this time of the year in arranging

for holiday schedules and so on, that the Opposition members all said last year

in this Legislature they believe their health care professionals should have;

and, to provide for them, there is always a timely reordering of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - procedures in the Province around this time of the year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the minister is now saying that people's expectations are too high. For

a number of years we have had a crisis here and, when it is convenient, the

Premier goes to Ottawa and tells the Prime Minister, Paul Martin and Allan Rock,

that we have a crisis here. He is now agreeing. Maybe the minister has not tuned

in to that one yet.

People cannot get the medical attention they need. With numerous bed closures

for the summer, the situation is only going to get worse. I ask the minister if

he feels it is appropriate for certain hospitals to provide only emergency

surgical services during the summer?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that we are providing a

greater degree of availability to cardiac surgery in the Province than we ever

have in our history, this year; the fact that we are providing more services

than ever in the history of the Province, this year; more than ever in the

history of the Province is the fact this year for cancer treatment and other

very serious illnesses, we are doing - and usually the opposition parties stand

up and acknowledge when the government listens to their pleas and actually does

what they ask; because in this Legislature they did ask in speech after speech

after speech for the government to recognize that we needed more health care

professionals, which we have. We have the greatest number this year than we have

ever had in history, again, for physicians, for nursing positions, for licensed

practical nurses and all other kinds of specialities in occupational health and

therapy. One of the things they said with that is, we need more of them but the

government should guarantee as well that they get access to their vacations. Mr.

Speaker, the only way that can be done, when you have more health care

professionals in the system entitled to vacation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - the way that is managed everywhere in North America, the

way that is managed is to cancel elective surgeries during vacation periods and

deal with emergency and urgent surgeries only.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No wonder we have a problem, when I ask does he think it is appropriate to

have only emergency surgical services in the summertime and he gets up and talks

about something completely different.

I ask him if he thinks it is appropriate for a woman who had cancer

previously, and who is on an urgent list for surgery, has to wait almost four

months to get the surgery she needs? Does he consider that appropriate?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. health critic, no matter how

he wants to present the view, I can tell him for a fact, again, that there are

more services available in Newfoundland and Labrador for health care in this

Province today than ever in the history of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: I think, Mr. Speaker, that is appropriate. We are trying to

continue to make improvements and trying to continue to make a broader range of

services available in more locations in Newfoundland and Labrador, like we have

done with dialysis services, like we have done with mammography and breast

screening and other issues. We are providing a greater range and more service

than ever in the history of the Province.

The fact of the matter is, all across Canada, where we have a publicly funded

health care system, because of the fact that it is publicly funded, people end

up on waiting lists because there is a defined limit to the amount of money

being spent by the taxpayers on behalf of the people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: The length and scope of waiting lists are completely in the

hands of medical professionals who make sure that the most urgent and emergency

cases get done on a timely basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A woman from the Northern Peninsula was sent into St. John's for surgery.

She came in on a bus, and she was told she had to wait six or seven days to get

a bed. She went back home, to the Northern Peninsula, and was called several

days later. She came in and underwent surgery to get a malignant thirteen pound

tumor removed from her stomach. Minister, I am hearing stories like that almost

on a daily basis.

Will the minister admit that our health care system has deteriorated so far

that people's lives are now being put in jeopardy on a constant basis?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are always examples of individuals who, unfortunately, have to wait

longer than we would hope.

What we have done is, we have adopted what the Opposition party said would be

their number one priority in their election platform. They said they would make

sure that health care was the number one priority, that is was the number one

funding initiative for the government. That is exactly what we have done.

Because we understand and believe that everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador

supports that, that is what we have done.

Mr. Speaker, he is trying to suggest, and he wants to get up day after day in

speeches and say that again we have not increased health care funding in this

Province by $136 million this year. He keeps going around trying to suggest it

is only $31 million or $32 million because he wants to play politics with health

care. It is too important for that.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this as well. The problem with it, that I have come

to know, with the same kind of individuals who have come to me, is that they are

unfortunately left with a health critic who will suggest to them, when they call

his office out of desperation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - his only answer is: If I was the minister I would do

something about it, which is the biggest lie in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My source is this book here that was prepared by the government. That is

where I am getting my figures, I say to the minister, in case he doesn't know.

In Corner Brook, beds have closed, staff are now being denied unscheduled

vacations, they are getting called back on double time, and days owed to them

cannot be taken. Minister, there is a crisis at the Western Regional Health Care

Hospital on the West Coast.

We have fifty nurses who are graduating out there this year and I have been

informed that not one of them was offered a permanent job - not one - and only

four have agreed to take casual work because there is no security and they can

go elsewhere and find permanent work outside the Province.

I want to ask the minister: Why are graduating nurses on the West Coast not

offered permanent employment on the West Coast when the shortage is so severe?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Opposition health critic, the hon. member, wanted to be honest about

the issue, he would take the reports that he has called for the public release

of, which the health care board for the Western region already has in their

possession, planning their future for health care delivery, which suggests - he

has seen the reports and he knows what I am talking about - that in Western

Newfoundland, more so than anywhere else in this Province, and with any standard

comparison anywhere else in the country, the one thing they don't need is

nurses. He knows that for a fact. He knows that and he will stand in this

Legislature and suggest that the nurses, because they graduate from a school in

Western Newfoundland, should be offered a job in Western Newfoundland. What he

neglects is that from 150 graduates this year in the whole of the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - almost 120 of them have now decided to stay in Newfoundland

and Labrador and take full-time employment with any one of the fourteen health

care boards, not necessarily the one in Western Newfoundland because they are

already overstaffed with nurses, not understaffed with nurses.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Western Regional Health Care hasn't offered any nurse graduating in any

part of the Province a permanent job, I say to the minister, not only the fifty

on the West Coast.

I was informed that over a two week period at the Western Health Care

Corporation $40,000 was paid out in two weeks in overtime costs, and the total

cost runs into the millions of dollars. Now $40,000 in two weeks of overtime is

enough to hire a nurse for an entire year. I ask the minister: Why are they

being told that the board does not have a budget to hire new nurses, but they

have a budget to pay far more money out in overtime costs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it makes the point that I have been making. He stands up and says: Why

is it that the Western Memorial Regional health care board hasn't offered a

graduating nurse from anywhere in the Province a job? He already knows of a

report that the board is now studying that suggests they don't need nurses.

They are overstaffed in nurses. What they need is physiotherapists, they need

occupational therapists, they need other allied health care professionals, but

they don't need nurses. He still wants to stand and says: Why haven't they

offered nurses graduating in Newfoundland full-time jobs? They don't need

them. He should be congratulating the board for saying: We are not going to

offer more nurses jobs in Western Newfoundland because somebody wants to play

politics with it, like the Opposition health care critic.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: They are going to seek out occupational therapists., they are

going to seek out physiotherapists, Mr. Speaker. They are going to try to hire

the staff that they need and they are going to try to make sure, like the

Opposition claimed last year, that they get the vacation they deserve as well

through proper planning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It doesn't make sense what the minister is saying. We are paying millions

in overtime costs and nurses have to come back on double-time, and on holidays

double and one-half time. We won't give people time off that they have already

worked in overtime, and we have too many nurses! There is something wrong. I

will ask him one simple question. Will he tell us if the health care system

today is better than it ever was before? That is what he is implying.

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the facts are these, and I will restate it again

for the record in Hansard. In Newfoundland and Labrador today, just to take

dialysis as an example, there is a broader base of service available to more

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in more locations, with more properly trained

health care professionals providing the service, than we have ever seen in the

history of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: That happens to be a fact. There are more cardiac surgeries

being provided every week in this Province, in May 2000, than have ever occurred

in this Province in its history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: That happens to be a fact. Now, are there demands beyond the

service in those two examples? Yes there are. Have we continued to make

improvements in each of the last number of years? Yes we have. Are we trying to

meet the needs of the people? Yes we are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Is health care our number one priority? Yes it is.

Individuals will determine, based on their own circumstance, whether they feel

the system is the best system it has ever been, or whether in fact there are

still things they want the government to seek continued improvement in, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. When the Premier

announced formal negotiations with Quebec to develop additional hydroelectric

capacity on the Churchill River, he said that a key objective was, and I quote:

"To ensure access to a secure, renewable source of power and stable

electrical rates in the province, as well as meeting the future demand of power

and energy."

We now know that Labrador power will not come to the Island in the

foreseeable future and the main project is in some doubt. Affordable energy from

offshore natural gas is still somewhat speculative and many years down the road.

So my question to the minister is: In view of this, does the Province have any

alternate plans to meet the future energy demands of the Province on the Island

or in Labrador?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the hon. member's quote is selective, but he has indicated

one objective that the Province had in going forward with the Churchill project.

One of them was to try to secure, if financially and economically viable, and if

technically feasible, an additional source of power to secure the demands of

additional growth on the Island and in Labrador. Also, there was the development

of an enormous power resource for future economic development in the Province

and to secure additional income for the Province by selling the power west. So

that is only part of the picture.

Yes, there are various elements of that that may or may not go ahead. It is

still at a preliminary stage. As for the future energy needs of the Province,

yes, we do have a plan to meet those.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The availability of secure, reasonably priced energy is essential to any

industrial development in this Province. It is especially critical to

development of value-added activity in a resource territory such as our own

Province. If we do not get power from the Lower Churchill what will be the

affect on our capacity to attract new resource based processing and

manufacturing industries to our Province?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the Province would want to be able to supply the

additional needs of any industrial activity that might take place here. There is

a separate question as to whether or not we use electrical power to subsidize

that. Frankly, I am not sure that is a wise decision in any event. What we do

need to do is to make sure that if there are additional energy usages which

would be high in energy demand that we are able to meet those.

What has happened since the proposed development on Churchill, among other

things, is that the Province has discovered that there is a tremendously larger

resource of gas, particularly in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin. One of the things we

have to weigh into the cost of transporting electrical power from Labrador to

the Island in particular is whether or not that source of energy is cheaper and

can be brought on stream in time to meet any anticipated growth in demand.

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

East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to be more specific. If we don't have access to Lower

Churchill power, I say to the minister, will there be enough excess energy on

the Island to proceed with a proposed smelter-refinery complex or other

facilities to fully process Voisey's Bay ore at Argentia?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In answer to the hon. member's question, yes there will be. It will come

from a variety of sources. I have mentioned natural gas is a possibility. Wind

power is another. There are also cogen proposals presently on the table with

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. There are several hydroelectric proposals right

now. Finally, there is also the possibility of wind power.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of

Education. The minister obviously likes to give some history lessons that are a

bit more spin than fact about all the money and resources the government has put

back into education.

Perhaps, I say to you, minister, you could do with an economic lesson. From

1993 to the present, per pupil funding for primary, elementary and secondary

education increased by just over 4 per cent. Over the same seven year period,

the consumer price index for Newfoundland increased by more than 8 per cent and

the education cost index increased by 20 per cent. I ask the minister to do the

math.

Is she aware that just to keep up with the normal CPI increases over the past

seven years she would have to put an additional $25 million into primary,

elementary and secondary education this year, and to keep up with the higher

educational cost index would require an additional $80 million? Will she agree

that the system is grossly underfunded, minister?

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

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: I will have to keep my lessons going, minister. Right?

Well, we will leave that for another day.

Perhaps you will understand this one, minister. Yesterday I asked the

minister about her decision to remove 180 teachers from classrooms in order to

provide units for guidance counsellor and learning resource specialists. Why,

minister, didn't you take the $4 or $5 million of the $11 million you cut from

the schools budget this year to pay for extra guidance counsellor and learning

resource specialists instead - and I say, instead - of forcing school boards to

rob units from the classroom, minister?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what I said yesterday, because

clearly the hon. member opposite has no understanding of the commitment that

this government has to education in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, at a time when we had 162,000 students in our

school system we had 6,648 teachers in the system. Today we have 60,000 student

less and we still have 6,317 teachers in the system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, how can you call that underfunding a system? We

put $700 million annually into education in this Province. We spend more per

student based on our ability to pay than any other province in the country. We

have the lowest student-teacher ratio than any other province in the country.

For the hon. member to suggest that we are not committed to education, well, he

obviously does not know what he is talking about or he is trying to play

politics with the facts.

The fact of the matter is we are ensuring we can offer an essential program.

The ministerial panel put in place a framework telling us the number of teachers

that will be required to deliver essential programming throughout this Province.

We are following that recommendation to the T. We are ensuring that we are

keeping the number of teachers in the system that the ministerial panel told us

to keep in so we can deliver essential programing to all of the students, no

matter where they live in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Minister, your lesson is obviously not getting across to

me because once again, I say to you minister, that the guidance counsellors, the

learning resource specialists, the classroom teachers, are all necessary for

quality education. I don't agree with that. However, what kind of educational

reform is this government pushing forth where you force school boards into the

position of choosing one teacher over another, one unit over another? It tells

them that you can have a guidance counsellor but you have to give up a teacher.

You can have a resource specialist but you have to give up a teacher. What kind

of reform is that, minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we have just gone through an extensive

consultation process undertaken by two very credible individuals in the

education sector, two individuals who went around, spoke extensively to all of

the stakeholders in education, and came back with eighty-six recommendations

ensuring that we had the appropriate number of teachers in the school system to

offer essential programming, including increasing the number of teachers to be

used as guidance counsellors. Today we have one guidance counsellor for every

650 students, not one for 1,000. We will have, as a result of the ministerial

panel report, one guidance counsellor for every 500 students. We have better

ratios than any other province in this country. We are down now to a teacher per

student ratio of 13.9, down from 14.3 students to every teacher.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services. Yesterday

we made amendments to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to recognize the

needs of sixteen to eighteen year olds for services, but there is still

continuing a serious gap in services to young people in the area of mental

health. We have no residential treatment facility for our young people, and they

are being either sent out of the Province at great cost to the Province or are

forced to receive their treatment in the Waterford Hospital, Health Sciences or

St. Clare's, which are totally inappropriate, and recognized to be so by

health care professionals. Is the minister ready to announce that his government

is prepared to establish a special mental health residential unit to provide

treatment for young people with mental health problems?

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we are not in a position to

make such an announcement at this point in time.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, will the minister acknowledge that the

government spends considerable funds on sending people outside the Province, and

in fact that some young people who could go to such a residential treatment

centre are instead sentenced by courts to Whitbourne where they don't get any

treatment of this nature at all? Will the minister reconsider the priority for

such a facility so that we don't have young people either receiving

inappropriate treatment, going outside the Province for treatment, or ending up

in Whitbourne where mental health treatment is unavailable?

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the issue is under regular and ongoing

review. There are a number of areas where we do not provide - not only this area

but several areas - a dedicated service in Newfoundland and Labrador. The

assessment and analysis that is done repeatedly and regularly on an annual basis

is to decide whether or not we can afford to provide the service in Newfoundland

and Labrador, both by putting in place a facility and the trained staff, or

whether it is still cost-effective, although somewhat inconvenient for the

individual, to purchase the service outside the Province in already existing

institutions. We do that not only for some mental health initiatives directed at

young people but also in a range of medical procedures whereby we are not in a

position, because of lack of facility or lack of specialists, to provide the

service in Newfoundland and Labrador; but when it gets to a point where we can

secure the specialists and it is cost-effective to do it in Newfoundland and

Labrador, we would prefer to offer the service in our Province whenever

possible.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

On April 4, the Chief of the Sheshatshiu Band Council, Chief Paul Riche, made

a public appeal to the provincial government to help him and his community in

their fight against solvent abuse. On the same day, in this House, I asked the

Minister of Justice what steps the government were prepared to take in response

to Chief Riche's request.

I ask the minister today: Other than writing Chief Riche on April 6, inviting

the Band Council to put forward suggestions for possible solutions, what

concrete action has the minister and the government undertaken in response to

the Chief's public appeal for help?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I did, in fact, write to the Chief and ask if

we could arrange meetings on this matter. He has corresponded with my department

and advised that he would like to so, and that he would be providing us with the

time that was convenient to him. We have made it quite clear to him that we are

ready to meet with him wherever and whenever he wishes.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, has the Province taken any action to increase

police presence in communities plagued by solvent abuse? Has the Province

attempted to work out a local agreement on policing with the Innu nation so that

the local communities have authority to help themselves in those matters? These

are things that can be explored. Has the minister made any effort to explore

those possibilities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as a result of meeting that were held last

fall, actually - and the Premier, himself, was involved in some of those

meetings - there have been ongoing discussions and dialogue with representatives

of my department as well as the Labrador Aboriginal Affairs officials. Those

negotiations are taking place at various jurisdictions. Some have been in the

Province, some have been in Labrador, and some, in fact, have been in Ottawa

because the Department of Indian Affairs are involved in this matter as well.

Yes, the dialogue is ongoing. I understand they are making some progress, but

obviously it is a very complex and detailed matter that takes time to be

resolved. As of yet it hasn't been resolved but they are, in fact, involved in

very complex and ongoing negotiations.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that a provincial group

home facility in Sheshatshiu is currently being used to house solvent abusers,

because there is nowhere else in the community to house them, and that it has

been done at the Band Council expense? Why isn't the Province helping the Band

Council to address this serious problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we realize there are very serious problems

concerning substance abuse. Not only the Department of Justice but, of course,

the Department of Health and Community Services have been involved extensively

in these matters. We are trying to deal with the problems as they come to light.

It is a very complex matter, a very tragic matter in a lot of cases, and we are

attempting to resolve it through ongoing involvement with these groups.

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the annual report of the Board of Commissioners of

Public Utilities on operations carried out under the Automobile Insurance Act

for the period April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In accordance with

section 3.(2) of the Mineral Act, I am pleased to table

the annual report of Mineral Licenses and Mining Leases for the period April 1,

1999 to March 31, 2000.

There are copies available for anyone who cares to review them.

Thank you.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move the following private member's resolution:

Act To Amend The Criminal Code (Impaired Driving)", and that law came into

effect on July 1, 1999; and

WHEREAS Bill C-82, as enacted, requires the courts to prohibit those

convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol from driving a motor vehicle

for a specific time; and

WHEREAS Bill C-82, as enacted, also recognizes that some provinces have

initiated, in conjunction with these prohibition orders, the use of an ignition

interlock device installed in a vehicle which intermittently requires a driver

to provide a breath sample for in-vehicle alcohol content analysis and disables

the vehicle's ignition if the breath samples fail the alcohol content tests;

and

WHEREAS the use of an ignition interlock device gives the public greater

assurance that an offender re-entering the driving population will drive only

when sober; and

WHEREAS provinces with the ignition interlock device have reported that the

re-arrest rate among offenders using the device is appreciably lower than that

of jurisdictions not using the device; and

WHEREAS drunk driving is the number one criminal cause of death in Canada and

is the largest killer of youth; and

WHEREAS drunk driving is a serious criminal offence and must be treated with

the full force of law and not merely as a matter of social impropriety;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the provincial government

to implement the use in this Province of the ignition interlock device to help

protect the public from death and disablement caused by drunk driving.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call first reading on Motions 3,

4, 5 and 6, if we could do them all -

MR. SPEAKER: Bills 21, 22, 24 and 23.

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

on tomorrow:

A bill, "An Act to Consolidate And Revise The Law With Respect To Urban

And Rural Planning In The Province." (Bill 21)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act." (Bill 22)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Prepaid Funeral Services." (Bill 24)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2." (Bill

23)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before I call the next order of business, I

understand those bills will be ready for distribution this afternoon. Is that

correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I call Order 15, "An Act To Amend The

Municipalities Act, 1999." (Bill 17)

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

Act, 1999." (Bill 17)

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

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

I am pleased to introduce second reading of Bill 17. As many members are

aware, the Municipalities Act was introduced in 1999 and it came into effect on

January 1 of this year, and it contained a provision which automatically vacates

the seats of municipal councillors if they fail to meet particular requirements

of the act.

Prior to the enactment of this, councils were required to pass a resolution

themselves at the council level in order to declare the seat vacant of a

councillor who failed to meet these requirements. One of the requirements is for

councillors to have all of their taxes that they are personally responsibility

for paid before the end of each taxation year. The application of this provision

of the act on January 1, 2000 resulted, as many of you will know, in about 135

councillors having their seats vacated because they were in arrears for their

personal taxes for either 1999 or for previous years. In fact, there were some

as well, as I mentioned here, who had previous years in arrears as well.

The Federation of Municipalities fully supports this legislative change. The

whole Municipalities Act was one done in cooperation with the municipalities,

administrators and other supportive groups that had an interest in the

legislation. This legislative change provides for the automatic vacating of

councillors' seats. Again, this was quite an issue a couple of months back.

Government believes that the municipal councillors must be accountable, and they

must set the example for taxpayers through the timely payment of their taxes.

Any councillor whose seat is automatically vacated because of a violation of the

conflict of interest requirements of the act, or is dismissed from council by

the minister, cannot seek re-election to municipal office for a period of two

years. In light of this - and this is one of the reasons why we are putting

forward this amendment to the Municipalities Act - because of the timing of the

next general municipal elections act being September 2001, these 135 people

whose seat was vacated January 1 would really not be eligible to run in that

general election and, in fact, would have to wait five-and-one-half years to

offer themselves up again, if they so desired, for council. Unless by-elections

were required in their respective municipalities after January 1, 2002, these

people will not be eligible to run again until September 2005.

Because of the number of councillors involved and because the fact that many

of these people, for the most part, would have been prevented from seeking

re-election in September 2001, therefore resulting in about a six year period,

in consultation with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities

we are proposing remedial action in the way of an amendment. This bill addresses

this issue by providing in

section 12 that councillors whose seats were vacated

on January 1, 2000, will be eligible to seek re-election in the 2001 general

election. Additionally, the bill also contains a number of very minor

administrative, mostly wording, amendments that were deemed necessary and

appropriate for the effective administration of the act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Minister for Cape St. Francis.

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

I want to say a few words on this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. J. BYRNE: Why? There are a lot of reasons, I say to you, why I want

to say a few words on this. Back last fall when the new Municipalities Act was

passed -

AN HON. MEMBER: What number is it?

MR. J. BYRNE: This is Bill 17.

When the Municipalities Act was passed, it was a pretty comprehensive review

done over the past few years. I think it started out when the previous minister,

Art Reid, was there. A number of years ago when Art was there he started the

review. It took quite some time and there was some discussion on it here this

past fall. I think the people of the House, when they were discussing this piece

of legislation - I don't think the present minister was minister at the time;

the Minister of Finance was the minister, I think, at that time - there were

some concerns brought up, and some of the stuff that is happening here now with

respect to this piece of legislation, where you have a lot of amendments being

done here: clauses 1, 2, 3, 4.

That was the point that was made at that time. That hopefully, after spending

so much time on that piece of legislation, we wouldn't be back here in a few

months, as we so often are, when the legislation goes through this House of

Assembly, making changes and amendments to the legislation, and we are here

today.

The most important one is what the minister referred to when she introduced

this bill a few minutes, or when she gave a second reading, when she spoke on it

a second time I suppose. The Municipalities Act came into place January 1, 2000,

and that was a key date because it was coinciding with the year end, basically,

and the regulations that were in place -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: If you so desire, all you have to do is go out to security

- we are on the camera here - and I am sure they will dig you up a copy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, sir, I am here for the people, not for you. I am here

to represent the people in my district, the people in the Province, and be

speaking on their behalf, which is what I am doing.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Listen, I say to the Government House Leader, the people in

my district know how good I am. They gave me a 2,100 majority vote the last time

around, I say to the minister, so I don't need your assistance in telling the

people of the Province how good I am.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Not likely. It might be my own. I say to the minister, she

spoke when she was up about the 135 councillors who were thrown off councils in

this Province, people who have served on councils for five years, ten years, as

long as fifteen years. It was an oversight. It was something that should have

picked up on by this House of Assembly. It should have been picked up on by the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs when this legislation was going

through the House of Assembly. We had a situation here where people who donated

their time to the people of the Province, to their communities, were booted off

councils, booted off with no formalities or what have you, just gone. It was

really shameful, and I can understand why if some of those people would never

want to run for council again.

MR. TULK: Listen, you are better than Tom Lush now.

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't know if that is possible, I say to the Government

House Leader.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, these 135 people who had served their towns and

municipalities for years were booted off the councils, were embarrassed when it

should not have occurred in the first place.

Now the minister and the Federation of Municipalities are recommending this

stop measure, I suppose, to allow those people to run in the next election, in

September 2001. I fully agree with it, that they should be allowed to run. It

was an oversight as far as I'm concerned with the legislation at the time, but

here is something I could throw out for some people's consideration. Maybe the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs might be interested in this. If we

have councillors - and we have hundreds of them across this Province, we have

over 300 municipalities or regional councils - maybe those people who serve on

these councils - because I served on a council for seven years. Seven years as

mayor. I volunteered my time and wanted to do it. I loved it while I was at it.

I put in thirty or forty hours a week in the first two or three years and we

created a nice little town. We donated our time, used my vehicle, didn't

charge a cent. Now under the Municipalities Act there is a certain percentage

that the municipality can take out of their budget, out of the gross figure, and

put it towards remuneration for councillors, but many of the councillors do not

take the money.

With respect to some of the smaller towns, if you look at their budget -

there is a council in my district and their total budget is only somewhere

around $160,000. If you took a small percentage of that and you are going to

divide it among seven councillors, it is not worth taking. That is the view that

many councillors take. These people put in a lot of time. Maybe what the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs should be doing is this: that

anybody who is serving on these councils should not have to pay their property

tax, their home now. If they have other tracts of land or if they have

businesses or anything like that - but maybe - and it would be a way of

attracting people to run for councils. Sometimes now we have councils -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The difference is this. If you have a property, your house,

it can be valued at whatever. In the smaller rural communities your taxes might

be $300, it could be $400, it could be $250. If you take a town which has a

budget of $200,000 or $150,000 and they have that certain percentage, I am not

sure what the figure is, but when you divide it out it might only be $50 or $100

for the year. It is not worth their while. If you allow them not to have to pay

their property tax, for a starter you won't get into this problem where at the

end of the year they don't have their property taxes paid. You take the time

they put in, the hours they put in, and it is minimal. It really is. Now, that

is sincere people who are prepared to work on the councils. There is a

difference. Do you understand what I am saying?

MR. TULK: It seems to me that those people (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That's a good point, but that is what I am saying. I am

only throwing it out for discussion. There are ways to look at it. What you

could do is set it at a maximum that it would not go above a certain figure.

There are all ways of looking at it.

MR. TULK: I think you are better off with per diems.

MR. J. BYRNE: Per diems? Well, whatever. To me, I think I was trying to

create a situation where this situation would not happen, where councillors who

have served their towns for five, ten or fifteen years would not be booted off

and embarrassed.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is easy to fix.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is easy to fix. Well, hopefully. We didn't do it the

last time, so what happened?

AN HON. MEMBER: They could have.

MR. J. BYRNE: They could have done it, I agree.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, that is another good point, but the minister is not

considering people especially in rural Newfoundland. The Government House Leader

is not considering people in rural Newfoundland, where the unemployment is

pretty high. It is hard, at the end of the year, to come up with a few bucks,

especially around Christmastime and what have you. There are all kinds of

factors that can be addressed.

Further to this, the minister said that the Federation of Municipalities

supports this, and rightly so; they should. There were a lot of negotiations and

discussions happening over last fall and over the past four or five years. This

is something that should have been stopped, pre-empted; it should not have

happened.

Again, the minister talked about how early in the new year this was a major

issue, and so it was. The clerks in the towns, or the town managers really, the

people who are responsible for that, should have notified, I suppose, some of

these individuals. Maybe they did and some people just could not afford it.

There were never any repercussions in the past. Some people worked out that they

would pay $15, $20 or $50 a month. They were still in arrears, even if they had

an agreement worked out.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the ones where social services pay the taxes?

MR. J. BYRNE: Some, social services pay their taxes. Well, that is a

different matter altogether.

We have a situation where the minister was on her feet today, basically, with

a statement saying that they are going to make changes to the Urban and Rural

Planning Act. Again, as I said, the Urban and Rural Planning Act is something

that I wanted changes made to as far back as ten years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: We are on the municipalities one, but it is all

encompassing. I hope the minister was listening to some of the comments I made

earlier. There is no problem. We support this, of course. It is something that

should never have happened. Seeing they were talking about councils, I think

there should be some latitude here with respect to this bill. The Urban and

Rural Planning Act certainly affects municipalities and affects the councillors

on these municipalities.

I have always had a problem with town councils, these people who are donating

their time being the forefront, being the front line, being the closest to the

people - I have been there for seven years and know it - and every act or every

action you had in the past, they had to come and run to municipal affairs for

approval. I didn't agree with it at the time.

I remember when we were first incorporated and I had a meeting with some

people at municipal affairs. We had a previous meeting with the minister of some

concerns we had. We had one of the directors - he is not there now - come down

to our council meeting and try to dictate to us what we wanted in our town plan.

I put up my hand and said: Stop now. Go back to your minister and tell him it is

not what we want. What we want is what we agreed to when we met with the

minister. They were dictating. It was this attitude that the people running the

councils didn't have a clue of what they were talking about when they met to

have a council meeting. Maybe there are some out there who don't - maybe some.

When it came to our council down there, I had more rackets with municipal

affairs and the previous ministers and a few of the directors over there when I

was mayor than you can shake a stick at, because of the old colonial attitude

that you did not have a clue what you were doing. We soon showed them. When I

was mayor down there, we had probably one of the best run towns in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was this?

MR. J. BYRNE: The town I was the former mayor of.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were mayor?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, Sir. The first Mayor of the Town of Logy Bay-Middle

Cove-Outer Cove. It was September, 1986.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Make sure it is a big one.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're awful.

MR. J. BYRNE: Awful. I am, aren't I? I will tell you what must be

happening. The minister is saying I am awful for blowing my own horn, which I

don't agree with at all. I am sitting on this side of the House, looking at

the members on that side of the House for so long now, for seven years, and you

hear people like the Minister of Health up today talking. Who else gets up over

on that side of the House? The Government House Leader, the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, when you are just being bombarded with those kinds of comments,

I suppose some of it, sadly, must rub off.

I say to the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Be your shadow? No, you should be in my shadow. That is the

way it should be, I say to the minister. You would like for me to be your

critic, in other words. Is that what you are saying? I wouldn't mind being

your critic, to be honest with you, because I would have a few questions for

you, I am sure. I am sure I would, and give the minister an opportunity to get

up and blow his horn, that he always does.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes, you do.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill17, as I said, I made a few notes when the minister was

speaking. We support it. There is no problem there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader, he is awful itchy. I

know why. He doesn't want to be in that seat there, for some reason or other.

He wants to be out of here. That is where he wants to be.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I can't let my friend from Cape St. Francis get away with

that. He knows the difference of that, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, if he

looks back on the records of this House he will find that when I was the

Opposition House Leader, the day we got out of here was July 8 - and this was

when his party was in power - 1989.

I have to say to the hon. gentleman that I don't mind being here. If we are

here until August, it doesn't bother me. I love the place, and I particularly

love to hear the hon. gentleman speak.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader, the roles are

reversed; his role is reversed. When he was in opposition and he was here until

June or July, there was plenty and plenty of legislation to be discussed.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh yes, I say to the minister, legislation. We are here and

what do we have to discuss? A few amendments here and there, Mr. Speaker, no

major legislation.

I remember a few years ago when they were trying to privatize Hydro. There

was no trouble on this side of the House to keep her going.

MR. TULK: The truth of the matter is, (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Exactly.

MR. TULK: Why don't you lay out (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, Mr. Speaker, can you believe what is coming out of

his mouth now? Can you imagine, that man has the gall to sit in his seat and lay

out our platform when in the last election we had our Blue Book - all the

policies in our Blue Book - and what happened? The minister there, the Premier,

the Minister of Finance, all the policies we had were ridiculed. You couldn't

look at the income tax to cut that, no way! You couldn't do that; but what did

they do as soon as they came back? The first Budget, they cut the income tax.

The we talked about the NUGS, the rivers, the damming of the rivers. You can't

do that to the people of Newfoundland. The first thing they did, bango! They

followed our policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, a couple, more than a couple, according to what you

have done since you got elected, I say to the minister.

Some other policies that they -

AN HON. MEMBER: The payroll tax.

MR. J. BYRNE: The payroll tax that they stole on us.

Mr. Speaker, we were in this House often - many, many times myself - speaking

on the payroll tax, how that was a regressive tax, a tax on jobs, and when we

suggested that we would cut that, phase it out over three or four years - it can't

be done! Where are we going to get the money? That is what they said during the

election. They ridiculed it. Now they have adopted our policy again.

The federal Liberals - the same thing in Ottawa when Jean Chrtien got

elected up there. He is not going to be there much longer, by the way, when the

boys get the knives out up there. NAFTA, the Free Trade Agreement, the worse

thing in the world, the monster, the devil, is going to destroy the economy in

Canada. Now, look. They are trying to take credit for it. Not only left it in

place but expanded on it, and that was the worst policy in the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

There are a lot of municipalities in the country of Canada. The taxation in

Ottawa affects the municipalities, affects the provinces. Now the GST; you have

to destroy that. We are going to get rid of that as soon as we get elected. What

did they do, Mr. Speaker? Got elected and went and increased it. That is what

they did. They called it the HST. They changed the name.

MR. SULLIVAN: What about free trade (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: I already talked about that.

Before, years ago, when Trudeau was there - John Crosbie. That crowd over

there should be on their knees every day thanking God for John Crosbie and Brian

Peckford who had the Atlantic Accord in place. You should be thanking God, that

is what you should do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Trudeau up there, when he got elected. Was it Trudeau or

Crosbie? Anyway, he was going to bring in the budget. He was going to increase

the gas tax by 15 cents or 30 cents a gallon. The worst thing in the world. He

called an election and the PCs were defeated. What did the Liberals do? They got

in and raised it about two bucks together. That is the way this crowd works, and

they are good at it. The problem is that the Tories are so honest and forward,

and tell the people what they are going to do. This crowd steals our ideas, then

goes out and sells it -

AN HON. MEMBER: Masters at (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Nice colour. I agree. The Government House Leader in his

heart and soul, deep down in his gut, is a Tory. Every time he comes into this

House, Mr. Speaker, he has a blue shirt. I commented on it earlier today but he

did not hear me.

All these things affect the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, I

think there is someone else who wanted to speak on Bill 17, which I agree with

basically. The only problem I do have - I do have a problem, of course - is that

this was not done right in the first place, which is what I said. I think if you

go back and check my words, I said in the House of Assembly in the fall of last

year: When will we be coming back to amend the Municipalities Act? Here we are,

the first chance, the first time the House is opened, and we are amending the

Municipalities Act.

(Inaudible) did you want to say a few words?

MR. SULLIVAN: Bob is (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Bob, do you want to say a few words?

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I think there is someone here who wants to get up and

say a few words to this piece of legislation.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on Bill 17,

An Act To Amend The

Municipalities Act, 1999, currently before the House. First of all let me say

that once again we have a piece of legislation just passed in the last session

of the House, last year in fact, a major piece of comprehensive legislation

passed by this House. It is a very large bill, three or four hundred sections

passed in this House, and here we are less than a year later and we have a

number of amendments because of certain grammatical errors, typographical

errors, one word substituted for another. We have before us twelve clauses

amending the legislation.

Obviously this legislation should have been subjected to the legislative

review process like we have suggested for the Environmental Assessment Act for a

detailed study by a committee of this House. Because it is pretty clear that

legislation that gets to this House does not get the kind of scrutiny that

members of this House could give it in committee where members would be expected

to review the legislation, compare it to their own experience, hear witnesses if

that was thought desirable, and any controversial areas such as the one that the

minister is dealing with here today, the automatic dis-entitlement of

councillors from running because they have failed to pay their taxes.

We had a circumstance in this Province a couple of months ago where dedicated

councillors who had served their communities well - especially in this Province

where it is difficult to get people to serve municipally. Because there is very

little in the way of rewards, and often nothing but trouble or complaints or

ingratitude in some cases from residents of our municipalities because of the

inability of councillors to overcome the serious problems facing our rural

communities in particular.

To have 135 of these public servants, who are elected officials of

municipalities, ceremoniously thrown from councils which they have served, it is

unacceptable to have such an automatic thing happen. There are better ways of

achieving the same objective. If the concern is that councillors may be abusing

their position as councillors to get a free ride from the taxpayers, I don't

think that is the case. In many cases individual councillors complained that

they were not even aware that they were in arrears with their taxes, and

certainly if they had been aware of the consequences of not paying them in a

timely fashion would have, in fact, paid their taxes and not found themselves in

the position that they did.

Even if they had been given thirty days' notice, even if the provision had

said that a councillor or serving member of council, or mayor, who is in arrears

of taxes shall be given thirty days' notice by the minister to bring himself

or herself into compliance with the provision, failing which the minister will

order the removal of a particular member from council, that would be a much more

acceptable provision, I suggest. We don't have to have arbitrary, draconian in

some cases, consequences for a person failing to meet a monetary commitment to a

town or community. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. A member could

be ill or there could be a serious illness in a family member and certain things

might prevent them - for economic or other reasons - from being a timely payer

of municipal tax.

I think the minister should reconsider the draconian nature of the current

legislation and not just deal with the issue of whether or not they are able to

run again - now that the minister is in her place I will repeat my concern -

that maybe instead of having an automatic and arbitrary removal from office that

there would be instead a provision for a thirty day notice of removal from

office for non-payment of taxes, failing which payment the minister would then

declare the seat of the individual vacant. That would be a much more appropriate

mechanism, particularly if there were provisions for some sort of appeal in

extenuating circumstances that would allow people with good intentions and good

faith to continue to serve their municipalities and serve the people of the

Province, the residents of their respective communities in rural Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Because we do from time to time in this House of Assembly pay special tribute

to the contribution made by members of a community, town and city council for

the service that they provide to their citizens in most cases, with few

exceptions, free of charge, without any payment. It is a contribution they make

willingly and they should not be treated in the manner they are treated by this

legislation. Many of them were highly embarrassed, surprised and shocked to

discover in January of this year that they were no longer able to serve. They

were no longer a member of council. They were no longer mayor of their

community. Some in fact went to court to challenge the effect of the legislation

and one or two cases were successful, but we should not have municipal officials

being required to go to court to continue to serve in elected office where they

are providing a public service to the citizens of this Province.

I think this whole approach is wrong in principle. It is wrong in principle

and ought to be changed. I would ask the minister to work with me to develop an

amendment to this legislation before this bill completes its passage through the

House of Assembly so that we could have, in fact, a more reasonable view of how

the individual council members may be declared to be no longer members of

council for the reason of non-payment of taxes. I am sure that a discussion with

the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities would lead to a

better method of solving this particular problem. I don't know how much of a

problem it in fact is, where there is any suggestion that councillors may be

abusing their positions. I have never heard it said in this House of Assembly

that councillors are abusing their positions by not paying their taxes. It seems

to me to put councillors and mayors of municipalities in a position of public

embarrassment for matters of this nature is unconscionable and ought not to be

the public policy of this Province.

I think they ought to be given a warning, a thirty day notice at a bare

minimum, by the minister or by departmental officials on the basis of a report

to the minister from the council and that there should also be a provision for

appeal based on extenuating circumstances or the making of particular

arrangements with the municipal authority. Failing either a payment within

thirty days or satisfactory arrangements for payment, then the minister might

declare a seat to be vacant if the concern was there that this was an

unsatisfactory example, if you will, to the residents of a particular town or

municipality.

I think that would be fair, too, because I know that municipalities certainly

make arrangements with taxpayers for payment of taxes over a period of time if

they are unable to pay immediately, before taking extreme measures to collect

taxes by a tax sale or otherwise. Equally that type of arrangement should be

available to members of a particular municipality.

With those two comments, concerns that here we are within a very short period

of time of having legislation here with a dozen amendments, only one of any

particular substance, and even that not going to properly correct the problem

that was identified, I think it is inappropriate that we be dealing with

legislation like this, especially comprehensive legislation, without going

through our legislative committee process.

I would ask the minister to consider further amending clause 12 of the bill

to provide a mechanism whereby councillors in default are given thirty days

notice of their default, and given an opportunity to either pay or make suitable

arrangements for pay, or appeal to the minister based on extenuating

circumstance before losing their seat in council. I think that would be a much

more acceptable and a much more responsive and compassionate approach to

recognizing the contribution that municipal officials make to their communities

on a year after year, day after day, sometimes decade after decade, basis

without, in some cases, a lot of gratitude and in most cases without any reward

at all except the satisfaction of serving your own community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

If the minister speaks now, she will close the debate.

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

Again, we are very pleased to put forward the amendment. I think it is

important to restate, and for information purposes for Hansard, that this piece

of legislation that we are proposing is still based on the principle that we do

need role models as elected officials. I think it is also important to say that

many people who are finding it quite difficult to pay, and in fact many people

on social assistance, found the money to come forward and pay their taxes. I

think it is inappropriate to assume that because people are poor or are on

social assistance they haven't been able to pay their taxes; because we have

excellent role models in both of those circumstances, in fact, who did comply

with the legislation. In fact, many of the very people who did not pay their

taxes had attended numerous information sessions.

The department conducted numerous information and training sessions. The

whole piece of legislation was under review since 1991, so over a nine-year

period I think it is quite obvious and certain that the issue around taxation

and your responsibility to pay your taxes and not be in arrears if you want to

maintain a council seat was not anything new. In fact, the only difference in

this piece of legislation and in the old was that it became an automatic vacancy

as opposed to having council pass a resolution to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, we are very happy to pass this resolution today - or present

this resolution - with the support of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation

of Municipalities, recognizing the importance of role models and recognizing the

importance of consultation in determining a new act.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999,"

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill 17)

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move to Order 16, Bill 18.

I would like the rest of the members to listen with bated breath. I would

hope that the minister, in introducing the bill, might take a minute to explain

the significance and even the difference between the Municipalities Act, which

we just dealt with, and the Municipal Affairs Act, which we are going to deal

with. I know I am supposed to know that, so I will have to listen. I hope she

will throw that in as a piece of information as she introduces the bill.

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

Act, 1999." (Bill 18).

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

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

I am very pleased today to introduce second reading on Bill 18, "An Act

To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act."

The Municipal Affairs Act, among other things, provides the authority for the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to initiate disciplinary action, if

deemed necessary, against municipal councillors for irregularities committed in

the performance of their councillor responsibilities.

It is unfortunate but every now and then it has been necessary to exercise

this authority, very infrequently albeit. There are, nevertheless, circumstances

that arise from time to time where the magnitude of the irregularities committed

warrants ministerial intervention. The current provisions of this act limit the

minister's authority in that action can only be initiated against a councillor

for irregularities that he or she have committed while serving during the

current four-year term of office of the council. No ministerial action can be

initiated if the irregularities, irrespective of their significance, occurred

while a councillor served during a previous term of office of the council.

This bill addresses the circumstance. Again, it is an issue that was

discussed and done in consultation with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation

of Municipalities. It addresses this circumstance by providing the necessary

authority for disciplinary action if it is warranted to be initiated against a

councillor for irregularities that he or she may have committed in a previous

term of office, because the ability to exercise the right in the current term

already exists in this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this Bill 18,

An Act To

Amend The Municipal Affairs Act.

I say to the minister that I was hoping she would give us a few examples of

what she was talking about, when she was on her feet, which would require this

piece of legislation.

I know that oftentimes - and have probably dealt with it in my own district

to some extent - certain actions taken by previous members of council or, I

suppose, their staff, could require some disciplinary action, but I do have some

problem with this.

For a starter - I highlighted this when I read it - under

section 1.(1.1) (

a) it says: The minister may, by order in writing, direct the municipal authority

to take the action against the member that the minister considers necessary or

advisable in the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, what does that mean?

MR. HARRIS: Hanging, jailed.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi says it could mean

hang, it could mean whipping. I don't know. I don't think so.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, he should know. He, being a lawyer, should know. I

agree.

The minister should listen now to what I say here. I don't know if she was

paying attention, but it says: The minister may, by order in writing, direct the

municipal authority to take the action against the member that the minister

considers necessary or advisable in the circumstances.

Really, that is a pretty broad statement, I say to the minister.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Bellevue just woke up again, Mr. Speaker. He

has been here now about an hour-and-a-half and he woke up again.

Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious clause in this piece of legislation.

The minister made the statement that in the act, if there is a present

council and there is something going wrong with the present, existing council,

and they do something that is outside their authority, they misappropriated

funds or whatever the case may be, they can take action. She can give direction.

Now they are going back to previous years. The other question is: How far back

are they going to go? Are they going to go back two years, five years or twenty

years? We don't know.

The Department of Social Services, with their welfare police, are going back

as much as twenty years. If we have a councillor who is elected, say, fifteen

years ago, maybe, who figures he will retire in five or ten years, he is still

on the hook. The minister can go back any length of time they can according to

this piece of legislation to the previous council. I don't know if the

minister heard that. How far back are we going to go, really?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am something like the Minister of Health today, and what

he was the other day. If you know what I am talking about.

MR. BARRETT: You are the critic for everything.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am not the critic for everything, but for all intents and

purposes today I am acting critic for municipal affairs, I say to the Member for

Bellevue, and a right one too. I have been there. I have been on council for a

number of years, I say to the Member for Bellevue.

MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Listen here, I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains, I

have no fears whatsoever along those lines, I can tell you that. When I was

Mayor of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove things were done right. Everybody

discussed it and it was voted upon.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, this piece of legislation does concern me, I have

to say, with respect to the statement here under 1(1.1)(a). If there is no

guidelines set down, what can the minister recommend? What can she recommend? I

don't know. It could be anything. It could be dismissal. It could be: Go over

and stand in the corner for four hours with a dunce cap on your head. What is

she talking about?

Again, this is another example. When we passed the Municipalities Act last

fall in the House of Assembly the minister said it was worked on for nine years.

Here we are again making amendments the very first opportunity we had. This

Administration - and it has been brought up in this House of Assembly so often

by members on this side of the House, and I think the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi - we have spoken many times with respect to pushing legislation through the

House of Assembly in the dying days of a session that has to come back to the

House of Assembly for review and amendments.

Hopefully, this time around, I would assume that whoever reviewed the Act,

again, got it right and that the minister has it right. Obviously the Minister

of Health, the previous Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, did not

get it right. I though that while he was there he was doing a good job. As a

matter of fact, I often complimented him in the House of Assembly.

MR. SHELLEY: You were fooled.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I was fooled. He tricked me. He was not doing a good

job at all and I thought he was. I am here seven years and I am getting too

soft, I say, but we will soon learn.

Mr. Speaker, now to the disciplinary actions against councillors. It is

getting to the point where we are going to have trouble getting individuals to

run for council. In the last election a few years ago - the next election I

think is in September 2001 - there were many councils that did not have enough

people to run to form a quorum. They had to have by-elections and they had to

persuade individuals in the town to run. Then, as we were just speaking on the

last bill, when the legislation came into being in January of 2000, 135

councillors were kicked off the councils.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: They were. All councils.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I did not even use your name. Oh, no, I did even use

your name. Pay attention.

I was saying when we were talking about the legislation, the last Bill 17,

135 councillors across this Province were kicked off the council. Embarrassed to

tears, I would say some of them, when it should not have happened. How are we

going to get people to run for council when everything now is all going to zone

in on these individuals? If they do the slightest thing wrong they are going to

have the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs on their case. When, in

fact, under the Municipalities Act, I know situations where Municipal Affairs

won't take their job seriously and go into certain municipalities and talk to

the councillors if they are not running things right. They should have some kind

of a system in place, in my mind, where if a council is not operating smoothly -

oftentimes it is nothing other than personalities. If one councillor is going to

say something, councillor B will disagree. Automatically, no matter how right it

is, they automatically disagree. Personalities. In situations like that,

Municipal Affairs should be able to go in and do something about it.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Exactly, right. Everything in due course.

I had discussions with representatives from Municipal Affairs, that they do

something, put something in place, where they are given the authority - when

things are not running smoothly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I think everyone in the House should pay attention now and

look at what is happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack, you better watch out, there might be some THMs in

there.

MR. J. BYRNE: There may be more than THMs in there, I will tell you that.

MR. TULK: I will get you a fresh drop.

MR. J. BYRNE: Can someone get me a different glass? Thank you, I say to

the Government House Leader. Thank you very much, I needed that. It is only half

a glass, though. Is that half full or half empty?

MR. TULK: With you it would be half empty.

MR. J. BYRNE: Wrong, I was going to say half full. I say to the

Government House Leader, thank you.

The minister made a statement when she was on her feet introducing this piece

of legislation that when circumstances arise this legislation would be

implemented. Certain things have to happen. I think this one needs to be

clarified, and the minister is going to have to clarify it when she speaks to

close debate. What are the actions that will be taken or being advised by the

minister to take? I know it is going to depend on a given situation. The

minister now is going to be the ultimate authority, really. What recommendations

is she going to make to a council? What are the punishments? What are the

disciplinary actions that can take place? We don't know. What are the

regulations? Are there going to be regulations to go along with this to let us

know? Who is going to make the decision of who is guilty and who is not guilty

in a given situation? Is it going to be after the result of a court action? Is

it going to be after a review by the department? Is it going to be after an

investigation by, say, the Auditor General? Is it going to be after an

investigation by members of Municipal Affairs? When is she going to take action?

What basis is she going to take action on? What action is she going to take, I

say to you, Mr. Speaker?

In any given situation the minister we have here today, well, that minister

can change tomorrow. They might take the Minister of Health and he may become

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Obviously, for the

omni-minister, no sweat there. Not only that, he went into education and he

screwed that up. He is into health, and according to our critic he screwing that

up big time. He was the Minister of Mines and Energy for some time, and where is

Churchill Falls? Where is Voisey's Bay? Where is the great negotiator? BT come

home. The Minister of Fisheries, he may be Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs tomorrow. Then people on this side will have to ask him for money -

MR. EFFORD: I guarantee if I do you won't get any! (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: See? The Minister of Fisheries rose to the bug, just like

the salmon. Hooked, and I will reel him in now. I hooked the minister, I got

him. If you were in the river and I saw you swimming up the river I would have

you hooked long ago, I say to the minister. No sweat.

MR. EFFORD: I guarantee you (inaudible) transportation.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am going to go on record. Everybody in the

House of Assembly heard the Minister of Fisheries say that we got no money for

pavement in my district when he was Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. I am a bigger man than that, because when he was Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation I paid him a compliment for going ahead with

the Outer Ring Road, but he is too small-minded to understand the way this

system works here. Tit-for-tat, what goes around come around. He thinks people

have with short memories, but they don't. They don't have -

MR. MATTHEWS: I treated you fairly.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Finance, I have to say, if the present

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs lives up to him and what he set

over there, Mr. Speaker, there will be no problems on this side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) right?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes sir, he was all right. I had no trouble with that

fellow, I can guarantee you that, Mr. Speaker, when he was Minister of Municipal

Affairs, although we did have a little racket once and I am still upset over it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are?

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh yes, I have a memory. He knows.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not going to hold it against me now, are you

Jack?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I wouldn't do that. I know how the situation works.

What goes around comes around, I say to the minister.

That is all I have to say on this piece of legislation. I don't know if

anybody else on this side wants to say a few words. With that, Mr. Speaker, I

will just sit for a few minutes.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am motivated to speak on this legislation for one reason and one reason

only, and that is to object to the broad powers being given to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs under this legislation. Now, I have just reviewed the

Municipal Affairs Act and there is no indication whatsoever in that act of any

limitation on those powers.

MR. BARRETT: Did you get a legal opinion?

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Bellevue likes to make snide remarks about

lawyers, but let me tell the minister one thing. I have practiced law in this

Province for twenty years, and one of the things that you learn practicing law

is that when people have legal rights to do things, they often carry out those

things in accordance with those legal rights. Here we have a recipe for

arbitrariness and, I would go farther, a recipe for abuse; not by this

particular minister. I don't expect this minister to do that sort of thing.

We have very broad wording which I find offensive to the notions of a

democratic society, where the minister is given the power essentially to be

judge and jury. She could, under this legislation, order a municipal authority

to fine a councillor, for example, or to make an order: I hereby order you to

fine a particular councillor or former councillor for acts done in a previous

administration..., or suspend them or take other actions, and arrogate to

herself the right to be judge and jury without any determination, without any

requirement that a determination be made, other than her satisfaction with a

report from an inspector. So, she gets a report from an inspector. An inspector

goes out, figures something out, sends a report to the minister, and the

minister is entitled, without any hearing, without any right of response by the

individual concerned, without any rules of natural justice applying to the

determination, the minister is going to be entitled to sentence, if you will,

and order a municipality to carry out that sentence on a particular councillor.

I find that offensive. I find it offensive as a citizen of this Province and

I find it offensive as somebody who understands how the law works and how the

law is supposed to protect people, not give authority and power to a minister

such as being given here. This is nothing personal against the minister, and I

hope the minister doesn't respond in a personal way to it. This is a matter of

democracy. This is a matter of legal rights, and I think it is the kind of

wording - and there is no trouble to change it. There is no trouble to make a

modification to that wording that would limit the actions that could be taken by

the minister to a suspension or a dismissal for irregularity after an individual

has been given a chance to respond to a report.

There is no trouble to amend it to reflect a more appropriate recognition of

the rights of people who are offering themselves to serve for councils. Elected

positions we are talking about. We are asking people in this Province to serve

their people in elected positions on city, town or community councils or

regional municipalities, and we are now giving the minister the power to order a

municipal authority to take action against somebody without any right of the

individual even knowing that there is a report on them sitting in the minister's

office.

I do not see anything in this legislation or in the act itself to say that an

inspection report that has been given to the minister under

section 6 has to be

given to the individuals involved, with an opportunity to respond. I do not see

anything there that says that. I do not see any rules of natural justice

limiting the power of the minister under that. It may be, and the minister could

tell us that: Oh, the courts would require us to do this or that.

Well, the courts may require that after the fact, after somebody finds

himself on the wrong side of a ministerial order, or a councillor finds himself

on the wrong side of a ministerial order. They might spend $2,000 or $3,000 to

go to court and have a court decide that the power of the minister to exercise

is unconstitutional, but do we want that to be the way that our municipal

affairs are governed, by someone having to go to court to have a judge pass on

the rightness or wrongness of a ministerial action when we here in this House

today can assure that proper procedure is put in place before such actions can

take place?

I am not here attacking this minister, and I hope she won't attack me,

either under her breath or publicly, for making these statements. I would say,

Mr. Speaker, these are matters of high principle. These are not technical, legal

points here. These are matters of principle that power, and strong power such as

this - unlimited power when you read the

section of the act - without any right

of a municipal council or municipal authority to know what it is that appears in

an inspectors report, and being given an opportunity to respond to that and to

go ahead and do something.

It is one thing to give a council the authority to take disciplinary action

against a member of that council for something that happened in a previous

council. That is fine, give them that authority. In fact, you could go further

and say if the council fails to act, do something. That might be interesting.

I encourage the minister, before she goes any further with this legislation,

to consult with the Minister of Justice to look at this wording - very broad

wording. I would submit that the wording is so broad as to offend a sense of

justice that we should, in this House, be here to protect; to ensure that our

citizens are not subject to arbitrary actions without the right of knowing what

it is that they are being charged with.

Section 6 of the Municipal Affairs Act talks about procedures on

irregularities with ministers being satisfied on the report of an inspector;

nothing about the right of individuals to respond to what is in a report from an

inspector; nothing in this particular

section to give individuals who are

accused of some irregular action in the conduct of their affairs as a council

without any right to respond. I think this offends my sense of justice as a

citizen, and I think anybody in this House who looks at this - I would assume

that everybody in this House has a keen sense of right and wrong about matters

of procedure.

I know the Government House Leader would not want to be accused of something

and have a right of a minister or some other person to act on that without him

having a chance to respond to whatever allegations might be contained in a

report. I know the minister understands and has a keen sense of justice about

that, as do other ministers and other members of this House. I don't think you

have to have a legal background to understand that, and I would ask hon. members

to give serious consideration to this.

I say this is a non-partisan way as a member of this House for nearly ten

years, who has viewed legislation, looked at legislation as it comes forward. I

find this offensive. I find this offensive as a member of this House and I find

this offensive as a leader of a political party. I find it offensive as a

citizen of this Province, to see that kind of power being placed in legislation

to give a minister of the Crown the authority - without any opportunity of the

individual whose conduct is in question to respond - to issue an order to a

council to take action against this person, such action as the minister

considers necessary or advisable in the circumstances. As broad a power as you

can imagine, Mr. Speaker, curtailed only by the possibility of someone going to

court to get an injunction or an issue, or order of prohibition against the

minister to prevent actions being taken, without giving people the opportunity

to respond to reports that may be made against them.

I submit that this is a very serious matter and I raise it for the

consideration, and for the honest consideration of all members of the House, to

consider obtaining some further advice. I would suggest that this be given

serious consideration and that it be put on hold for time to allow some

reflection on the consequences of this type of legislation without providing any

opportunity for individuals to respond, or without limiting that power in some

way so as people who read this legislation are aware of what consequences might

take place to them if they run afoul of an inspector and run afoul of the

minister.

We are trying to encourage people to be involved in municipal office, as part

of our democratic institutions. I think to subject them to this type of - I

would call it tyrannical legislation, giving rise to a power in the minister to

act in a manner that is contrary to people's rightful expectations to have an

opportunity to respond to any complains made against them, to any inspection

reports that may be sitting on the minister's desk, and to have some knowledge

as to what limitations might be placed on the powers of the minister under this

proposed new

section 1.1 of the act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now, she closes the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

I would like to say, in response to some of the comments that were made -

first of all, a comment or a question that was asked by my colleague, the

Minister of Health and Community Services - the difference between the

Municipalities Act and the Municipal Affairs Act.

As members would know, the Municipalities Act is

an act that governors the

municipalities. The Municipal Affairs Act is what gives the minister the

authority to oversee her responsibilities or his responsibilities as minister.

They are quite different.

In this particular amendment, what we are asking for is that the minister

would have the authority to address, if warranted, an action based on

information that would have been brought forward, and this is very clear.

Another member asked for examples. We do have examples of conflict of interest,

misappropriation of funds, or theft, which occurred in a previous term but the

limit of the legislation was such that the minister was not able to act upon

those irregularities even though they came forward to the justice system.

There is no intent, and I would say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi,

I am sure he would like to see the law upheld, as an officer of the court, and

would suggest that councils would have members, elected officials, working on

their councils that again are role models and are upholding the law. I think

that the only intention here is to broaden this particular legislation so that

the minister has the ability, particularly in cases of overlap, where

information is brought to the minister's attention on examples such as theft

or other forms of misappropriation of funds, or conflict of interest, that the

minister may, upon advice of justice - because it isn't an arbitrary process.

It isn't a tyrannical piece of legislation, as the member opposite from Quidi

Vidi-Signal Hill commented. In fact, it is about ensuring that we have people

running our governments, whether it is at whatever level - in this case it is at

the municipal level - that are in fact role models and who have not violated or

broken the law. I think that is a reasonable expectation for constituents and

people to expect.

Again, as the member alluded to in the opening comments, there is no

suggested hanging associated with this amendment. What we are suggesting is that

when information is brought forward that really should expect a minister to act

appropriately, this piece of legislation, this amendment, will give the minister

the ability to make the appropriate decision based on advice, whether it is by

justice or by an inspector and, again, with the dismissal of a councillor,

through the Cabinet process.

I think it is very much in order. It is about protecting the rights of the

constituents and by the municipalities and its members at large. It is certainly

not a violation, and people who feel their rights are violated always have the

recourse through the courts, as we know. Again, this is about reacting and

responding to information that has been brought forward - and with

recommendations, I might add, made from justice - but renders the minister

unable to act upon those recommendations because they crossed over the previous

term when in fact the same person, for example, who misappropriated funds has

been elected for another term, and everybody is aware of it, and that minister

has no ability to act on that information.

That is the basis. That is the kind of example that we are referring to, and

that is the basis for this amendment, not to exorbitantly influence or enhance

the ministerial powers but to allow the minister to act upon recommendations as

such.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act, "

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill 18)

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

MR. TULK: Order 17, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment

Act." (Bill 19)

The Minister of Municipal Affairs will wax eloquent again.

On motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's

Assessment Act." (Bill 19)

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

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

I am pleased today to introduce second reading on Bill 19, "An Act To

Amend The St. John's Assessment Act."

The City of St. John's, unlike other municipalities in the Province,

carries out its own property assessments under the authority of the St. John's

Assessment Act. The assessment of property in other municipalities is carried

out by the Municipal Assessment Agency under the authority of the Assessment

Act.

A fundamental aspect of the property assessment function is the right of a

property owner to appeal the assessed value that is affixed to his or her

property. This rate is currently afforded to the residents of the City at no

direct cost, notwithstanding the high cost associated with the administration of

the appeal process.

The cost can be attributed, in part, to the number of frivolous appeals that

often are filed annually, and the number of cases where an appeal is filed and

the property owner fails to even appear at his or her own scheduled appeal

hearing.

The City feels that the imposition of an appeal fee would reduce such

occurrences as it relates to the frivolous appeals, and would therefore reduce

the overall cost of the appeal process. It was these same factors occurring in

other municipalities that in fact prompted the 1998 amendment to the Assessment

Act to provide for an appeal fee in all municipalities except St. John's.

Again, I think it is important because it is not just the imposition of a fee

for the sake of imposing it. The bill would provide the City the authority to

impose an assessment appeal fee consistent with the authority contained under

the Assessment Act as applies to all other municipalities in the Province.

This fee would be refunded. This is important to note. It would be refunded

to any property owner who appeals his or her assessment and subsequently reaches

an agreement with the property assessor as to the property value, or withdraws

his or her appeal at least ten days before the scheduled appealed hearing, or is

successful in having the assessed value of his or her property reduced in the

appeal hearing.

Again, this is not meant to deter the appeal process - legitimate appeals.

What it will do is make people take stock and, if they are going forward with an

appeal, they will at least make an appearance. They will not cause increased

administrative costs and work and then not show up to even attend the hearing.

It does make provision to refund any monies that would be paid if the property

owner appeals his assessment and reaches an agreement with the property owner

or, in fact, if he is successful in having the assessed value of his property

reduced in the appeal hearing.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

The minister has a busy day. I want to say a few words with respect to Bill

19,

An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act. When the minister was on

her feet, what she was saying certainly appears to make a lot of sense. The City

of St. John's itself wants this assessment fee implemented for an appeal.

I do have a question, though, I suppose. The City itself would assess the

appeal fee. I would imagine, we have a number of councillors down there and we

should not have too many worries about how much that fee would be. I would say

it would be something that would deter, as the minister says -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, the minister says it is the same as other fees with

other areas. It certainly would be enough, I hope, to deter frivolous appeals.

We experienced, ourselves, as a small town down there, when we had appeals

and people did not show up and we had to have an assessor or a mediator come in,

or whatever the case may be, to hear the appeals. Of course, the City should not

have to foot the bill for something of that nature.

It is hard to argue with this, other than to say that maybe a person could be

entitled to have at least one appeal in, say, five or ten years. Because if, in

fact, a person does have an appeal for an assessment and it is borderline and

they do happen to lose it - I mean, they are going to have to foot the bill.

That situation can certainly arise, but where you have appeals just for the sake

of appealing, just because someone got their back up or whatever the case may be

with the city council, yes, I think that we can live with this.

The minister says also that if the appeal is successful and their assessment

is reduce