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


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin routine proceedings the Chair would like to welcome today, on behalf of all members, Mayor Tony Ryan and Deputy Mayor Wayne Finlay from the Town of Port Saunders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make a statement in response to comments that were made by Mayor Andy Wells of St. John's with reference to the issue of water taxes on provincial government buildings in the city.

At Monday night's council meeting, Mayor Wells suggested that the city's grants to community groups could be on the chopping block if government does not agree immediately to pay an extra $2.2 million to the City of St. John's.

The government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not going to be held hostage by the Mayor of the City of St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: What the mayor is engaging in here is political terrorism. It is despicable for the Mayor of St. John's to place the burden of the city's shortfall on the backs of community groups serving the socially disabled in this Province.

This government has been more than fair to the City of St. John's and, Mr. Speaker, the record shows that it has.

Here is a list of some of the things that the government has done for the City of St. John's in 1998: $68.2 million for the completion of the Outer Ring Road; $16 million for a civic centre; $5.9 million upgrade to Memorial University Utilities Annex; $5.6 million annual debt servicing; $5.3 million annual municipal operating grant; $5 million in 1998 capital works projects; $3.2 million in transitional grants for the fire department; $3 million for the clean-up of the harbour; $400,000 for landslide prevention at the Battery, and the list goes on.

In addition, the Province has provided some $132,000 in Special Assistance Grants. This total includes $86,000 for the St. John's Boundary Expansion as well as $10,000 for Iris Kirby House.

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

The city claims that I made a commitment to pay them water and sewer tax at the expiration of the government's firefighting grant which is due to expire, ladies and gentleman, Mr. Speaker, on March 31, 1999. The amount of this firefighting grant is $3.2 million over two years.

On September 9 of this year, the Mayor of St. John's wrote the Province with respect to the matter of taxation on provincial properties. In response, the Premier reaffirmed government's commitment to devise an approach that is fair and equitable to all municipalities. The Premier further assured the mayor that upon completion of the study, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will made appropriate recommendations to Cabinet and that decision with respect to this matter will be provided to municipalities at the earliest possible time.

There is a basis on which water taxes are currently being paid to the City of St. John's, the City of Corner Brook, and the City of Mount Pearl. This is not just a matter of paying taxes in Corner Brook and not in St. John's. There are anomalies in this whole situation associated with the existing systems in three cities, and steps are being initiated to correct them.

The Mayor of St. John's should not expect any radical change that would warrant the opening up of Provincial coffers prior to the announcement of the next municipal budget.

I have asked my colleagues in the House of Assembly representing the City of St. John's to join me in a meeting with the city in an attempt to address this whole issue.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps the key word in this Ministerial Statement today is found on page 2, where the minister himself states: There are anomalies associated within the existing system and appropriate steps are being initiated to correct them.

I say to the minister, that is the case. Water services to the Province, in the City of St. John's, includes such institutions as Memorial University and hospitals, all of which are provincial institutions. Therefore, the payment for water services is on behalf of all the citizens of the Province, all Newfoundlanders and all Labradorians.

What we need is an end to the war of words which is constantly taking place and which unfortunately involves the same constituents; in many cases the residents of the City of St. John's and all the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. I call upon this minister and this government to show some leadership in putting an end to this war of words which is ongoing on a continual basis and serves to help nobody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the minister's statement, while I too cannot condone a tactic which would suggest that community groups, social groups, would suffer directly if this government did not act immediately, I have to recognize and fully support the efforts of the City Council of St. John's to ensure that the citizens of St. John's do not bear an unfair tax burden at the expense of the provincial citizens whose institutions are being serviced by water and sewer, as well as everyone else in St. John's.

Single payments such as the Outer Ring Road or particular projects are distributed throughout the Province, and cannot be used to replace ongoing commitments to meet the expenses incurred directly against the city. I would support the efforts to deal with this situation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - as quickly as possible. I would be happy to join with the minister in a meeting to try and resolve this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to bring forward this ministerial statement on behalf of myself and the Minister of Justice.

I ask hon. members to join me and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador today in recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

On December 12, 1948 the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which initiated a positive step forward for the cause of human rights.

Since that time a global consensus on basic human rights has developed through a number of international agreements and conventions. However, despite these words, millions of people worldwide are still denied their basic rights.

Today, in the lobby of the Confederation Building, Oxfam Canada is providing an opportunity for all members of this House to sign the Global Charter for basic human rights.

I am told that representatives of Oxfam are here in the gallery today - I know they are certainly outside, Bill Hynd and Linda Ross - and have already collected over 6,000 signatures from all over the Province, through churches, schools and community organizations.

Also today, joining us in the gallery, will be students from a number of different districts who have also signed and supported this cause. I commend these students, Oxfam, and all others who have offered their efforts to further this cause.

In Canada, the influence of the Universal Declaration can be seen in both the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Of particular importance is the recognition provided in the Universal Declaration of the inherent dignity and equality of all people and nations, and that respect for the rights of people is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

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

Many of the principles of the Universal Declaration, particularly the principles of respect for the rights of people and the ability of people to live their lives without discrimination, are to be found in the Human Rights Code of our Province.

Last year, government strengthened our Code with an amendment to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination in recognition of the need to bring our legislation in line with the needs of the 21st century.

I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the work of the Human Rights Commission. The Commission has been instrumental in upholding the importance of the respect for human rights in our Province.

Earlier this week, the Commission announced it has published an Annotated Human Rights Code and launched its own World Wide Web site.

On behalf of the government, I wish to thank the Commission for its efforts to date and congratulate the Commission on these most important recent accomplishments.

This year, our Province will join every Canadian province and territory, and other member nations, in celebrating the anniversary of this historic declarations.

Together, we will reaffirm our commitment to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians take their freedoms for granted. But the rights and freedoms we enjoy today are the result of years of struggle by individuals and groups who wish to live in a just society.

Oxfam hopes to raise awareness as well among the public that people everywhere have basic rights and that these people should be protected, respected and fulfilled.

In the year 2000, these signatures, along with millions gathered by Oxfam around the world, will be presented to the United Nations as a sign of our dedication to making the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a reality.

I encourage everyone to sign the Global Charter, to do your part in helping to secure basic human tights for everyone.

Today, as we celebrate this important anniversary, we appreciate and we give thanks for the rights and freedoms we do enjoy, and we affirm government's commitment to ensuring our rights and freedoms are maintained and strengthened for our future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Minister of Justice for a copy of part of that statement, because I understand it was an integration of two.

First, I would like to recognize and welcome representatives of Oxfam. It is certainly an organization that is recognized throughout the world. I congratulate them and thank the representatives of Oxfam for their very good work.

It is also important that we recognize the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human rights, and it is important as well that we recognize the good work of our local Human Rights Commission. It is important to remember that we live in a country that has many benefits, and it is important that we realize also that we are a country which is a refugee receiving nation.

Approximately one month ago I had the opportunity to attend a ceremony at City Hall where some forty or fifty new Canadians chose Canada, voluntarily, as their new country and as their country of citizenship. That to me is an obvious reflection of the importance and the role that Canada plays in this World.

We must also keep in mind that when dealing with human rights it is never a stagnant issue. It is forever changing, it is forever evolving, and we must always strive for improvements with respect to human rights codes, either in our Province or in our nation. We saw an improvement, for example, in the past number of months with respect to the amendment to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination. Human rights is an important issue, never stagnant, always growing, always developing, and always open for improvement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join in recognizing today as the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I want to pay tribute to all the groups who have advanced human rights in this Province in our society, particularly the Human Rights Commission of the Province, the Human Rights Association, OXFAM, which is particularly interested in international rights, and women's rights groups which have fought to try and make those rights living, breathing examples of what we are entitled to have in our society.

As I say, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is still a living, breathing document that challenges us daily, as we found this week in the House with respect to women's rights. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration talks about the right to work and the right to just and favourable conditions of work and protection against unemployment. We do not have that right, in reality, in Newfoundland. As we speak government is preparing legislation that will ensure that home care workers do not have the right to adequate protection against unfavourable conditions of work.

We have daily challenges, Mr. Speaker, in the area of human rights, not only universally but in our own city and Province, and we ought to be very vigilant about them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I have had some representation recently from people in the Clarenville area with respect to the construction of a community sports complex for that area, a facility that has been paid for primarily - or the majority of it - by taxpayers. Some $956,000 of public money was contributed from the Province and Ottawa under the Canada/Newfoundland Infrastructure Agreement. The remaining one-third was a private contribution claimed to be a loan from the Federal Business Development Bank.

Can the minister tell me if there were proposal calls to the community to construct and operate this facility?

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

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

Were there proposal calls by whom? I do not know the question. It was a private sector application to the infrastructure program. It was not called by the municipalities; it was private request.

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

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

It is my understanding that the department was involved in the monitoring of the project. Surely there was a significant amount of provincial dollars into it. Claims have been made to me, which I bring forward to you as minister today, that government did not call for proposals but chose the operator itself. Is this unusual? If it is not unusual, could you explain why it would not be unusual under the Canada/Newfoundland Infrastructure Program?

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

MR. A. REID: The only thing that the provincial government and my office had to do with the whole project was project approvals, and we do that for every project - financial participation, federal, provincial, and project management. They had to submit plans to us to fall within the guidelines set out under the Public Tender Act. They had to go to tender with their plans. They had to accept the lowest prices. That all falls under the Public Tender Act.

I can assure the hon. member that was checked on and I can assure the hon. member that my staff certainly made sure that all the rules and regulations pertaining to the construction of that facility were carried out legally, as far as I know.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The contention from local business in the area is that it appears to be highly unusual that approximately $1 million in public money would be used under the infrastructure program to construct a facility which has a large commercial component. Does the minister think it is appropriate that a publicly funded facility, with public taxpayers' dollars, should compete with existing private enterprise in the area?

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

MR. A. REID: No, I certainly do not. I agree with the sentiment of the hon. gentleman's comments. If you remember - please give me due indulgence here - last year when this whole question came up, it was me who refused to provide the money to the area, to this particular private individual, and I held off on it. In fact, after a number of questions from the members of the Opposition and members from this side of the House on what I was actually doing with it, because I was nervous about it, I wrote the mayor a letter and asked him: Would he categorically either accept or reject this on the basis that we were afraid that this was going to happen?

Subsequent to that, not only did we get the town's support but we got support from the Clarenville area Chamber of Commerce, the Eastern Community College in Clarenville, the Broomfield-Musgravetown Lions Club, Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, eight development associations covering the entire Bonavista Peninsula and extending to Port Blandford, to Long Harbour, along with numerous other groups and organizations. The only letter - and I say this quite honestly - that I received contrary to the sportsplex being built in Clarenville was a letter from Mr. Peter O'Brien of the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses. One letter, Mr. Speaker.

I stood in this House day after day and said: No, I will not provide the money for this project until the people of Clarenville and the area come forward and say to me: Mr. Reid, we want that facility.

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

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: No, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island - is that the correct name? - is right; you cannot ask for more than that. But that was then -

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

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

That was then. This is now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in the last little while I have had a number of representations from people who are involved in the Chamber of Commerce, that the facility has gone in a direction where it was not supposed to head; that there are other commercial ventures going on within the facility beyond the scope of what was originally intended.

I would like to ask the minister this question. Obviously public money has been put into this facility. Can the minister tell us: Is there any security within - that the Province has secured for the close to $1 million that was put into this facility?

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has some correspondence from people or whatever, who have concern about this, I would like to see it because I don't have any correspondence from anybody in Clarenville or from anybody who has a problem with this; not a thing. I have not received anything.

As I said, there was one letter that came from the Association of Independent Business People back a year-and-a-half ago and up until now there was one inquiry by phone, to my office, by a gentleman who thought he was being competed with, and he was talking about a sports bar. It was called Don Cherry's Sports Bar and Grill that has been opened out there. We did an investigation into that. In fact, we sent our people out and we asked for an independent assessment done on it. We found that this bar and grill that is being installed out there is not provincial or federal government money; it is the money that is being provided by the owner of the building, himself. So it is private money. There is no money going into it.

I don't know, I cannot say for sure here today, if we do have any security on that particular - I would be surprised if we don't, but I will find out for the hon. gentleman and let him know as quickly as I possibly can. I don't know what security the Province has on that type of facility. I don't know, I'm sorry.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Mr. Minister, under our system of government there is a clear contrast between the proper role of ministers and the proper role of public servants. Ministers are responsible for setting policies and creating programs and then it is the responsibility of public servants to administer. The activities of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in administering the Provincial Home Repair Program clearly indicate he has abandoned his role as chief policy maker and placed himself in the role of administrator of the program. Doesn't the minister feel that this is what he has done?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, let me say once again that there is an article in the paper today about how I click my fingers, and the hon. Member for St. John's South succeeded. Mr. Speaker, I had no more to do with this, with clicking my fingers - or he did either -than you did, Your Honour.

The community health boards in St. John's are the ones that determine - and this is an answer to that question - who gets funding in St. John's. The community health board, in consultation with my department of housing, determines who gets it. The hon. gentleman that this gentleman stood in the House two days ago and ranted and raved about, was turned down by the community health board, not by me. Subsequent to that, he was reassessed.

The day that I stood in the House, which was yesterday, and said you had it, he had it; but it had nothing to do with me, not one thing in this world. He was reassessed by the community health board, and I challenge anyone in this House and anyone in this Province to find out other than that. I had nothing to do with it.

The day before last, when the hon. gentleman who just posed this question to me, the very moment that I was standing in this House, his secretary was calling my office and asking my office: Would I do an inspection on a person in Deer Lake that the hon. Member for Conception Bay South, or Holyrood or wherever, requested, while he was questioning me in the House on whether or not I had that authority! While he was doing it! That was the (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: I will prove that to you too as well, if you want to challenge me, because I have it on record.

Mr. Speaker, I say quite honestly to you that I have been taking a lot of criticism here in the last few days, and I am taking it based on the assumption that I am doing something different for myself or for any other member of this House. I am not doing it. I am helping people on that side of the House, I am helping people on this side of the House, to help the most needy clients that we have in this Province, and I will try my best to continue to do that. I take exception, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister this. Programs of universal application, including the Provincial Home Repair Program, are most fairly administered by people who have political motives, but political intervention has taken the fairness away and forced the system to react to calls for political favours. The program thereby becomes available to those with the best political connections and not to those most in need.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Doesn't the minister feel this is what has happened through his intervention in the Provincial Home Repair Program?

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I tabled yesterday in this House the guidelines for the Provincial Home Repair Program. If somebody had taken the time to read them they would have seen that in the guidelines the people at the Housing Corporation, along with influence from a number of people - from church groups, from MHAs, from community health groups and so on - have the right to turn around, because of the extra money that was put into the program to do such a thing.

Mr. Speaker, why is it considered political patronage or not right for, let's say, I as an individual to do it for someone in my district when the hon. Leader of the Opposition can write me a letter and ask me to do it for him? I don't understand why he can do that. I don't understand that.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me make the distinction clear for the minister. The person who was referred by my office to the minister was in need of the program, met the criteria -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me finish. The allegation, Mr. Speaker, is that people who were in less need were bumped ahead. What I did as a member was correct.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: It was correct, in referring a situation - the situation and circumstances had changed on this lady - and asking the minister to review it. If the minister in his review with department officials felt that the circumstances had changed to such a degree that her need had increased, then he should have done something about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister can try to muddy the waters all he wants. He cannot use an eighty-year-old woman in my district for his own political advantage, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There is no point of order.

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

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is all well and good for the members on the opposite side, including the Leader of the Opposition, to stand in this House of Assembly and question any minister on this side with regard to political patronage, then to say that the only need is on that side of the House, and that no representation from this side of the House can come forward. You cannot have it both ways!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: There has been no reference that the need for people (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: There was no assertion made by me in this House that need only exists on this side of the House. It is not exclusive to anybody. I referred to one person. What I said is that it is shameful for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to use an eighty-year-old woman for his own political advantage in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the luxury of one or two secretaries in my office, but I can assure the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs that my secretary did not phone his office looking for help for anybody.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, two days ago in the House of Assembly the minister suggested that forty-seven MHAs, other than himself, should go to him personally with cases needing attention, to lobby him to push them up the list. Isn't that precisely the minister's problem? Surely it is time to put such programs on a sound administrative footing. Would the minister consider exempting himself from the decision making process on this program, and other programs of universal application, and set up a mechanism whereby the program can be fairly delivered to all citizens?

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am looking for the letter, because I went up yesterday to the member for Deer Lake and I referred it to him. He said that he would not do it. He refused to do it on behalf of that same person. So this person (inaudible).

Mr. Speaker, let me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

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

MR. A. REID: MHA referrals were a part of this new program, and everyone was afforded the opportunity to benefit from this program. There is no problem to prove that. Whether that was right or wrong is debateable, I guess, and that is the reason the debate is going on here today. It was done with the best intentions to help people in need.

I am perfectly prepared to go back to the fixed term of six to seven years, because that is where people were. Prior to this program this year, it took six to seven years for someone to get on a list and actually get done. If that is what this House wants me to do, set up a waiting list and not allow any flexibility whatsoever - because up until this year there was no flexibility because it was operated by the federal government.

In that period of time, I would like to hear from MHAs on this particular matter. In the meantime, if that is what you want me to do, I can order stops of any referrals, Mr. Speaker from those (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to conclude his answer.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that I am not only answering to the Opposition here. I am answering also to a local newspaper which continues to quote that I had 20 per cent or 25 per cent of the grants in my district. I am ashamed to stand in the House today and say I only got 25 per cent. I should have had a lot more. Here is the reason why, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. A. REID: Seventy-five per cent of all applications in 1991 came from Carbonear, and 55 per cent of all applications came from Carbonear in 1992. Out of the 8,000 in the Province, 1,139 came from Carbonear. The reason why there was a pent up need in Carbonear for the last number of years -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. -

MR. A. REID: - was that the previous Tory government designated Carbonear as the last community in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, proper shelter is one of the most basic needs of citizens. When inadequate shelter is provided other aspects of life deteriorate, such as health. It is evident from the number of proposals the minister received that the program is certainly underfunded, in addition to being inappropriately administered. Will you consider increasing the program funding so more families in need of proper shelter can be accommodated?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the hon. member was asking his question I wondered if while he was still recognized that he might want to apologize for the obscene gesture he made to me across the floor a couple of minutes ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: I admit, Mr. Speaker, that I was heckling him, but I think the obscene gesture was unwarranted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have a firsthand knowledge of some of the conditions that people are living in in this Province. I have a firsthand knowledge because I have been minister of housing now for almost six years. I have a firsthand knowledge of, in some cases, deplorable conditions that some people are living in this Province.

I feel personally, and I think I can say this on behalf of this side of the House - apparently it is not true on the other side - that I think if we are going to put money into a housing program the money has to be directed. Not to a list of people who have been there for six, seven or eight years, but it has to be directed directly to people in need.

I really do not think that there should ever be a list created. I do not think there should be a list created on a first-come, first-served basis. I think there should be plenty of money, or enough money, in a program to provide what is necessary for people to live in a comfortable, clean house.

I say quite honestly to the hon. member and to you, Mr. Speaker, that I would only be too glad if this government could find an extra $10 million, $15 million or $20 million to put into the housing budget and be able to administer it like that. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. A. REID: - that we should be accommodating people on a list for six or eight years. I do not think that is all we should do. We should do other than that.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to return to the issue raised during the ministerial statements dealing with the provincial responsibility for water consumption as it relates to the City of St. John's. It is a very important issue. It is an issue which is causing some concern for a lot of people, not only residents of this city, but indeed all of the citizens of this Province.

At 1:00 p.m. I attended today a news conference where the Ministers of Works, Services and Transportation and Health and Community Health were present, in what I would call was just simply a return volley. It was a return volley and it does nothing to help put an end to what is a very difficult situation.

I say to the Minister of Health and Community Services who has a district in the City of St. John's, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who has a district in St. John's, and my District -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - of St. John's East, that we are talking about the same constituents, the same constituents over which the City of St. John's has jurisdiction. My question is to either of the two ministers who attended this news conference today. Will they take some leadership, Mr. Speaker, to put an end to what is becoming a very aggravating situation, an end to this ongoing dispute between the City of St. John's and the Province? I would ask either of these ministers to assume some leadership and respond to this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the question is completely out of order. If there is a question for the Minister of Health and Community Services, the member can rise in his place and ask it. If there is a question for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, he can rise in his place and ask it. It seems to me that if there is a question of substance it should be addressed to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order. A member may direct his questions to any minister. Questions are directed towards government, and any minister may respond to a given question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I have asked the question. I just reaffirm the point that it was these ministers were at the press conference at 1:00 p.m. -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - in the absence of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. My question is: Will either of these ministers assume some leadership and help resolve this ongoing dispute?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. member knows that, as we said at the press conference, my colleague and I, we have been in fact taking a leadership role in trying to resolve this issue. As a matter of fact, we have a meeting arranged for 3:00 this afternoon with members of the City Council to deal with this issue. We have organized this meeting as a result, really, of some calls from some city councillors who thought we should do this, and we agree.

The problem we have had as a government with the City of St. John's is that we have been attacked, we have been maligned, and we have been victimized by a council who has a leader that really should be trivialized. The fact of the matter is if city council, under its current leadership mayor, had any interest in dealing with matters on a productive and cooperative basis, they would deal with us on a direct basis and not through the media. Media grandstanding may be okay in certain circumstances but when the City of St. John's, under its current leadership, decides to put out a full page ad in The Telegram that is factually inaccurate, that is totally inconsistent with the truth - if I might say -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - when the leader of the City of St. John's decides to deal with us in that fashion, we have no choice but to do two things: To continue to say that we will meet with them and work on their problems, and that in the interim if we have to address allegations publicly we will be the first to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: We had a press conference today to deal with some allegations. We are having a meeting at 3:00 p.m. to deal with some matters of substance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: What the minister fails to recognize is that this mayor is his mayor, he is my mayor, he is your constituent's mayor, he is my constituent's mayor. We have to work together, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Rather than a flippant response, I ask the minister again: What will he do as a minister of this Crown, as a member for a district in this city, what will he do to show some leadership to resolve this ongoing matter?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that we are meeting with city council this afternoon and hopefully out of that meeting will come a positive and productive approach to the problem that the city alleges it has.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will be at the meeting. He will, on behalf of government, articulate government's position and where we are. The thing that is most bothersome, I would say to the hon. Member for St. John's Centre - St. John's East, I am sorry. The Minister is from St. John's Centre. The Member is from St. John's East; the member who wishes he was a minister but will never have that occasion any time soon.

To the hon. member, we are prepared to do everything we can on a reasonable basis to address any issue that the City of St. John's puts forward. The problem that we are having with the City of St. John's - and I speak as a Member of the House of Assembly for the City of St. John's - is that we have leadership in place down there -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: - that is, on a political basis, operating day to day to malign, discredit, distort and cause misinformation to be distributed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: That has to be addressed. I addressed it today, my colleagues addressed it today at a press conference, and we will continue to defend ourselves and support government and do what is right for the citizens of the city.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Minister, our Province is last among all provinces in Canada in its efforts to help people suffering from schizophrenia. Current provincial policy requires uninsured patients to be failed by at least two older medications before they can try these new break-through medications. This prior authorization process is unlike that of any other class of prescription drugs that is presently on the provincial formulary. The result is increased hospitalization, increased visits to see their general physicians, increased cost of drugs, incarceration and homelessness.

I am sure the minister is aware that medications represent only 5 per cent of the cost of dealing with schizophrenia, whereas hospitalization is 89 per cent. I want to ask the minister: Why are you denying the open access to those typical anti-psychotics?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The decisions that we have been taking most recently with respect to adding new drugs to our formulary has been based on evidence. We have been working very closely with the specialists involved in making those decisions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: With respect though to this particular - if the member would care to hear the answer about this very important issue, I would only be too happy to answer it.

Right now we are working as well with physicians. We are very close to finalizing an arrangement with respect to schizophrenic drugs. We are waiting to get a final approval through our chief researcher, through the Human Investigations Committee, and we are waiting on that because we do like to follow the proper process and procedures before we make any announcement about schizophrenic drugs. I say to the member that we will be making an announcement. I understand the approval we are waiting to hear should be due within the next couple of weeks and we will be making an announcement at that particular time.

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

Order, please!

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to raise a point of order and maybe a point of privilege with respect to something that occurred during Question Period that I raised briefly at the time.

In the last few days we have dealt with an issue of some language that was used here - because we do have audio coverage of what happens in this Legislature - and, as a result, certain apologies were given and certain language was considered to be out of order and so on.

We had today, Mr. Speaker, witnessed by many members on this side of the House and by people in the gallery on this side of the House, an obscene gesture made to me, directed towards me, during Question Period by the Member for Conception Bay South.

Any time that I have broken the rules of this House and been called to task by the Speaker I have always retracted and apologized. I would ask if the Member for Conception Bay South would acknowledge that he made an obscene gesture that, if we had video coverage of this House, the people of the Province would have seen and would have found offensive; that he would acknowledge that and would do the right thing, the same as I would do: stand up and recognize that it was in the heat of debate.

I was heckling the man improperly. I apologize for the heckling. I think he should be man enough to stand up and apologize for an obscene gesture directed at me as a member of this House; because if we had video coverage of this House, every person in the Province would say that it was behaviour unbecoming an hon. member and he should do the honourable thing and offer an apology.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair, of course, did not see anything that was out of the ordinary here in the House during Question Period in terms of gestures by members. That is not to say the member did not make it or did make it. The Chair can only refer to Hansard for comments, for the verbal record of things that happen in the House. The Chair will say, if the member had done something wrong then I am sure the hon. member will apologize for it.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

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

If the Minister of Education thinks that I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes you did.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) liar.

MR. FRENCH: Pardon?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, because I have such respect for the rules of the House. I know that calling a member a liar is out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: I retract the statement, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw the statement even though it happens to be true!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, if the minister thinks that I did and it was directed towards him, then I certainly would retract it. I certainly would.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act."

Answers to Questions
For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I was asked in the House yesterday to provide the criteria for contractor selection for the RRAP program and contract selection for the department. I would like to table the criteria for that right now, for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

Petitions

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people of Labrador City, Labrador West;

WHEREAS the residents of Labrador City condemn the provincial government in supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada's decision to process Labrador resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reverse its decision and support a policy of secondary processing within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to raise these petitions in the House day after day as we have done in the past. As recently as yesterday and today we have been talking to people from Labrador West, Mr. Speaker, and they certainly have not forgotten this issue; although they probably don't get the media attention they deserve because they are in Labrador West and are not here every day to fight the battle. There are many people in this Province who support them in their petition.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Bouchard.

MR. SHELLEY: Bouchard. I sort of forget that name all the time. I don't know if it is intentional or not, Mr. Speaker. Premier Bouchard, the man who is going to try to break up this country of ours, gloated and kicked off his provincial campaign in Sept Iles, Quebec, bragging about the jobs that were going to be created in Quebec because of a resource coming from Labrador West.

The people of this Province and the people of Labrador West certainly have not accepted it, to date, and will never accept it, Mr. Speaker. It is up to this government now to put a halt to it and show the same consistency that they had shown, Mr. Speaker, when they took on the Inco giant, when they were going to make sure that the process was done here in Newfoundland and Labrador for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What this has done really, Mr. Speaker, is thrown an inconsistent message to the people of this Province, saying: We are going to be tough with our resources one day but not tough the next day. I say to the ministers who are in the House: They still have time to correct this, to change it and to get back on track.

The people of Labrador West are simply saying, Mr. Speaker: After thirty-six years of mining iron ore in Labrador West, after all the profits that have been made from this resource, if they want to make more profits, they are going to have to do it in Labrador West. That is a simply statement we have always put forward, we have been consistent on it for over a year.

Mr. Speaker, the very first day I heard that North was going to take over the Iron Ore Company of Canada, I asked questions in this House, and the minister and many other people assured us at the time that this would never happen, that we wouldn't see the iron ore of Labrador West going to Quebec or anywhere else for that matter, going to Quebec to create jobs in that province.

We are going to continue to support the people of Labrador West. We have not forgotten it, we are going to have more questions in this House for the people of Labrador West on this particular issue. By the way, Mr. Speaker, a lot of questions which the government made commitments to answer, they still have not answered yet, and the people of Labrador West are waiting for those answers. I made that comment to the minister today, as a matter of fact, that many questions have still not been answered, Mr. Speaker, that the government should get back on track, get those questions answered, get up to Labrador West and make sure they have those meetings to answer the questions that are still unanswered.

Mr. Speaker, we still support not only the people of Labrador West but the people of this Province, when they talk about our resources and what this Province should be getting from our resources. It should mean jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador. It shouldn't mean 250 jobs down in Sept Iles, Quebec.

So we support you and we are going to continue to raise these petitions in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, whether they are ignored by the government or not.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward today by my colleague, the Member for Baie Verte, and the critic for the Department of Mines and Energy.

Mr. Speaker, we have been putting forward these petitions now for a great number of days, and we call upon the government to begin some meaningful dialogue with the people in Labrador City and Wabush area. Mr. Speaker, the people of Labrador City are in this capital city today. They have been visiting ministers since the morning, and I do believe that more meetings are still ongoing as this day goes on.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity this morning to meet with some of the representatives from the joint councils. These people are telling us that they have not heard from the ministry since they were here some weeks ago, there is not a good flow of dialogue. It is such that the people in Labrador City feel abandoned by this government, absolutely abandoned. Mr. Speaker, the councils in Labrador have put forward a great number of questions and to date they have not received an answer. That is totally unreasonable and it is totally inappropriate that there be no communication going back and forth on this very serious issue. The people of Labrador City feel abandoned by their own government.

Mr. Speaker, it is a long distance between here and Labrador City and these people cannot be in this capital city and this building every day to advocate their cause. They come to this capital city and to the offices of the administration looking for some positive and good encouragement, and they have not been receiving it.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Labrador City are concerned with the current state of production. They are concerned with the long term. Mr. Speaker, we know what is happening here, that the ore from Labrador is going outside the Province, it is creating jobs in another province. It is no wonder that the Premier of the other sister province is so happy about this particular decision. They believe that not enough was done by this government to protect their jobs, to protect the industry in Labrador City, Mr. Speaker, and they have just cause to believe that. They believe more could have been done.

Since they were here some weeks ago there has been zilch by way of communication; nothing at all. There have been no meetings carried on with the joint councils of Labrador, no meetings carried on with the Mayor of Labrador City, his council, the Chamber of Commerce and other representatives there.

Mr. Speaker, these people are asking this House today what is going on, when can they have some dialogue, when can they sit down with ministers. I know that today the Minister of Labour met with the representatives. I know as well there was a meeting on this morning with other government departments. Mr. Speaker, it should not be required that people have to travel all the way from Labrador City into this particular administrative government system to get answers to very simple questions. Mr. Speaker, we have to work with the people of Labrador City to make sure that the jobs there are protected in the long term. When these people said, not enough has been done - they believe more could have been done and they are calling upon government today to do a lot more than they have been doing, particularly in the last few weeks.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a few comments with respect to the petition that has been presented here again today with respect to the issue in Labrador West and the expansion to the mine operation, as well as to the pelletizing plant in Labrador West, and the activation of a pellet plant in Sept-Iles, Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think anyone should misunderstand the position of the government. It is not that the government disagrees with the petitioners or disagrees with the point they are trying to make, that we would like to have the additional jobs and the full expansion in Labrador West, instead of part of it in Quebec. The difficulty, Mr. Speaker, is that we are trying to get the Opposition, rather than play politics with the issue, to be frank about what it is, exactly, they think the government could do without causing more problems than the current issue has already caused. Because, Mr. Speaker, we have only heard a couple of suggestions.

One suggestion from the Member for Ferryland, who has repeated it several times, is that he would not let it go ahead at all, he would demand that the ore stay in the ground. That is his point, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Minister of Education and Training just made a statement that is incorrect. He either doesn't understand the statement or he is misleading this House, one or the other. I did not make that statement and I would like the minister to apologize for accusing me of making it. I think the record of Hansard will speak for itself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The record of Hansard speaks very loudly for itself, because the Member for Ferryland is on record as saying, when asked what would you do about it: I would leave it in the ground.

Now, leaving it in the ground, Mr. Speaker, has ramifications for not only Labrador City but also all of the operation in Wabush. So that obviously is not a solution, and we are looking for solutions.

The suggestion from the hon. Member for Waterford Valley today is that the government has not done enough, and that there has not been a discussion. Today alone, Mr. Speaker, there has been an eighteen page question and answer document given to the Chamber of Commerce representatives from Labrador answering every single item that they have ever raised a question about, with the information as the government knows it. He is trying to suggest otherwise, and I think everybody understands the politics of the issue and the fact that they are trying to jump onto an issue because they believe there is some credibility in it for them.

The issue is this, Mr. Speaker: If there was something that this government could do by taking a unilateral action to stop the decision of the company, it would have been done. The members opposite know that. They have also talked at times, Mr. Speaker, about maybe changing the 1938 Act. They know, because they have talked about it in this House, that would attract all kinds of lawsuits and legal liability and financial liability for the government, for the taxpayers of the Province, that would be way beyond the value of any expansion currently being discussed in Labrador West. So they don't want to hear the real facts, Mr. Speaker, they don't want to talk about the issues, and they will always refuse to say, if we play the game of pretend and if they were ever the government and if they were put in charge of this, what would they do. When asked that question they never answer, Mr. Speaker, because they know there is no answer. They will pretend they can do something.

We have done everything we can, we will continue to make sure we maximize economic benefit for Labrador West, Mr. Speaker, and I challenge any one of the members opposite, anytime, to stand up and say exactly what they would have done differently if they were the government. Because they would do nothing differently and they should stand up and admit it, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition. I wasn't going to, but I have been enticed into this debate by the Minister of Education, whose statements reflect a political lack of will on behalf of the government. He has asked directly what we would do. In the next five minutes you will hear it.

Mr. Speaker, one of the first Question Periods - we all know what the Minister of Education has done or not done but I am not going to lower myself to get into that aspect of it. We would like to stick to issue, I say to him today, and that is not a problem. With respect to the decision made by IOCC, I will ask this question: If the Government of Quebec took a delegation from Sept-Iles, from the Department of Mines and Energy, from other departments of industry and trade, representing the Government of Quebec, and -

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member presenting a petition or is he speaking to something?

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

- and went to Australia, where North's headquarters were, for over two weeks to negotiate with the parent company of IOCC, offering wage incentives, offering tax incentives and offering training incentives. Mr. Speaker, that is what they did.

Now let's compare it to what the Newfoundland government did, the government elected to represent the interests of people in this Province. The Premier of the Province - one year before this decision was made, during the Labrador Games, I say to the minister - went to Labrador City, met with the Chamber of Commerce, met with the local leadership in the area and what did he give a commitment to? He said this: If that announcement by IOCC to expand its pellet plant operation does not occur in Labrador West, I will be the first person on the plane to Australia. I will be the one who will be going to make sure that it does not happen.

Question: Did any officials from the Department of Education, Mines and Energy, Industry, Trade and Technology, representation from the leadership in Labrador West or any representation from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, go to negotiate at North's headquarters in Australia? No. So that is one thing he would have done, I say to the Minister of Education. We would have grabbed the bull by the horns.

Next question: The federal Minister of Finance was in Labrador recently for a fundraising dinner. When asked the direct question: Were there any representations made by this provincial government to the federal Department of Finance for tax incentives with respect to expanding the operation in Labrador West? The answer was again, no. No representations made by this government on behalf of its people, particularly in Labrador West and on behalf of the people of the Province.

Next question for the Minister of Finance to answer: Right now in Labrador West the production of IOCC is at half, 50 per cent - the first time since 1991-1992. People in this House have been accused - and in particular myself and my colleagues - of fearmongering. Every issue we raise in this House we talk about fearmongering, while capacity and production is declining in Labrador West. Engineering work is moving at a rate, flat out in Sept-Iles. The refurbishing of that Sept-Iles plant is taking place. Mr. Speaker, the concern is legitimate and it has never been answered by this government. What happens because of an economic downturn? What happens? Is there a commitment or a guarantee that has been sought from IOCC, that if an economic downturn occurs, which it does regularly in cycles, that it will be the Sept-Iles plant that will close down production and not Labrador West? Did this Premier or this provincial government or this know-it-all minister on this issue, ask for that commitment? No, Mr. Speaker. Never asked, never got it. You cannot get a commitment on our resources unless you ask for it. That is what it is.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us apply another litmus test, two weeks ago in this House we passed amendments to the Mineral Act, that we supported on this side of the House for the most part, that said to a company coming into this Province to exploit our resources, that it will be done on our terms, no one else's. I ask the minister: Did this government take that piece of legislation and apply it to IOCC?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: Next question: In the last three to four weeks, the leadership in that region, the President of the Chamber of Commerce, the Mayor of Wabush, the Mayor of Labrador City, representatives from the union, have written consistently to this government requesting answers to commitments that have not yet been made, commitments made that they would be given the answer. To date, no answers, I say to the minister.

One last comment for the Minister of Education. Before you stand up on this petition, on this particular issue, you go back and find the answers. You come back to this House and show this House, and through it the people of the Province, where your government stood up for the people in Labrador West on this particular issue or any other issue in this Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, rise to support this petition. I have spoken on this petition several times before, here in this House. I do not get carried away by the Minister of Education who is trying to twist statements that I have made here in this House at all. The facts speak for themselves. We want to develop the resources of this Province for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and they are applying a double standard, one for Inco and another one for IOCC, for North Limited. It is a different standard.

I say to the minister, John Le Boutillier, on October 27, would not give any assurances that Labrador City would not continue to be the primary pellet producer - would not give assurance - and we allow an export of jobs of our resources that are going to last for 120 years. We talk about $170 million over the 120 years; $1,500,000 a year is what it averages, allowing the company to rape the resources of our Province.

No, the Premier said: We won't allow Inco to do it - a smelter and refinery here in our Province - but we will allow IOCC to do it. I do not see the difference, I say to the minister, I do not see the difference. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not see the difference. The only ones who see a difference are on that side of the House. It is a double standard. How can you speak one day out of one side of your mouth and speak the next day out of the other side of your mouth? That is what is happening in this instance. That is what is happening.

They do not have a defence. They have no defence in what they are doing. That is why they tried to attack, misconstrue and twist statements that we make on this side of the House, and that is not correct. I do not see any defence, why Inco should be allow - and I supported it from day one, the stand the Premier took on Inco and we applauded as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We are not going to allow the resources - we have seen it, the Upper Churchill. It is enough to make everybody in this Province squirm at the billions of dollars we give away. And to allow a separatist premier of this country to make an announcement to kick-off his election in Quebec on the backs of resources of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is unacceptable.

The gall of the leaders of our Province here - ministers sitting around Cabinet - to allow that to happen. They should hold out. I do not care what the national people think about the Premier and his tough stands. I do not care what they write in the Financial Post, or the National Post or The Globe and Mail. I do not care what they write.

He was elected to represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and he should. He did not go on a plane to North. He did not jump on a plane to Australia. He jumped on a plane instead to Vancouver to raise money for his leadership. That is where he went. ( Inaudible) the people of the Province. He has to start realizing we have to fight. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador will support action on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They will support it. Their support came out on the Inco stand, all over the place. Then, to undermine the credibility of that decision on Inco -

AN HON. MEMBER: Slow down.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Humber East does not have to tell me to slow down, I can tell you; a member who stated publicly, and was quoted in the media, and I have a copy of it here, that he was sandbagged by the Premier. You will always be back in that seat you are in now today, I can tell the Member for Humber East. You can forget the front benches if they are saying the Premier sandbagged you, I can tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Does the Member for Torngat think we should be sending his iron ore out to Sept-Iles? Does the Member for Humber East think that is right? If you do, stand up and speak. We cannot get you to stand up and speak on the issue. All you do is yap across the House when we are speaking on the issue. Stand up. You have a couple of point men to get up and deflect all statements there. The Minister of Education is the designate during this session of the House to do that. He is the designate there to try to twist and warp and change statements.

The simple issue is this: Why are you not applying government policy and legislation equitably to all companies that are in trying to take a resource out of this Province?

I see no difference in scaling an upscale and more production from a resource than starting a new resource in another location. It is extra outport we are looking at from a resource that we have, and extra processing of that resource, the pelletizing of that, and there are no assurances. He said verbally, it is not going to be affected, the pellet plant that we currently have in Labrador - verbal. Where is the writing? Where is the agreement? It has no authority, no value at all in a court of law whatsoever, what a president of a company said back in 1998 in five or ten or fifteen years time, or much sooner than that, when you see a scale down and you are looking at the value and remarkably of a certain pellet. We will be reading in the future about how a pellet from Sept-Iles is superior. There is a demand there, there is no market niche for this one here. We have a higher demand. We are going to increase production at Sept-Iles and we are going to shut down production in Labrador City.

We have given away the rights to be able to maximize the return from our resources. We have 40,000 less people here over the last five years in this Province - 541,000 - and the number is going down. I would not doubt now but in the next count it will be down in the 530-some thousand. Newfoundlanders away working -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the intervention from both the Leader of the Opposition - the official Leader of the Opposition and the unofficial Leader of the Opposition who probably should still be the Leader of the Opposition.

All he did was verify what I said. They raised their voices, they talked a little louder than normal, but they said the same thing. Because the effect of the representation by the Leader of the Opposition about going down and look for wage subsidies and all of those kinds of things means the other view that I did not get a chance to finish the last time, that one of the propositions put forward by the government is that if there is a $170 million difference, or a $250 million difference, that we should give them the money.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland just said you can pretend it is only a couple of million dollars a year for 100 years and it is insignificant. The fact of the matter is that there is a billion dollar expansion going to go ahead in the next couple of years in Labrador West. Private investors, through a company, are going to spend the money in the next two years, and if somebody is going to make up the difference they have to give the cash in the next two years. The government would have to buy the expansion of taking $250 million worth of taxpayers' money and giving it to the company for the expansion.

They know, if they were the government, they would not do that, because every time I ask: Is that what you would do? They say: No, that is not what you do. Mr. Speaker, that is the affect of it.

Again, he talked about the fact that if you are not going to do that - in some effect, if the company makes a decision with private sector investors' money to do something, and the government says: No, you cannot do it, you cannot spend your money. If we could find a way to do that, all we have in effect done is to take the suggestion of the unofficial Leader of the Opposition, which is in effect make them leave the ore in the ground.

Then nobody has any advantage. There is no expansion to the mining operation in Labrador West, there is no expansion to the pellet plant in Labrador West, because the commitments that are given are that the floatation plant in Sept-Iles will not be reactivated. The direct reduction pellets, which are the growth sector of the industry, will be developed in Labrador West and produced there, not in Sept-Iles. The company is continuing with its no layoff policy. The Minister of Mines and Energy has asked the company again - and they are meeting with the company in the very near future - to commit in writing to the whole notion that if there is an economic turndown they will keep Labrador City open and shut down or slow down Sept-Iles.

The question is this, and this is what the Opposition refuses to deal with: What happens no matter how many times and how many times we ask that question, they still say: No, I am not saying that.

Now you have got to be able to find a legal way to stop them from doing the expansion. The only question I have been asking is: Would the members opposite please tell me - other than breaking their own law and incurring massive lawsuits for the taxpayers of the Province, or buying the jobs by taking $250 million immediately in the next year or two, or trying to enforce the policy of leaving it in the ground and suggesting you cannot ship concentrate out of Labrador West, which means you immediately shut down Wabush completely - what they would suggest? With any of those options they know that the alternatives are not at all anything that anybody in the Province, including the people in Labrador West, would want to deal with.

When they offer a viable alternative - because we cannot find one at the present time - we will gladly enact it. Because we want the jobs and the maximum benefits for Labrador West more than anybody, but we are not about to go and try to play politics with it for the sake of trying to be on the winning side of some kind of an argument, or the popular side of some kind of an argument, just because they are so desperate to find something that somebody supports them in.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to speaking to this issue again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to rise and present a petition in the House on behalf of 1,500 residents of the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair asking the government to continue their support and support them in their need for a highway and continue to proceed with this project on schedule.

This petition was circulated in a number of communities across the district, and they have all supported the prayer of this petition which I would like to read into Hansard:

WHEREAS in recent months there has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the Trans-Labrador Highway - we have heard opposition to this development from the Innu Nation, and have heard various perspectives from the Metis Nation - the people in communities that are directly affected by this development seem to take second stage to those environmentalists and lobbyists; and

WHEREAS there are fundamental issues that will provide the framework for discussion, especially the St. Lewis link and the services for the communities that will not be connected to this highway, these issues can and will be mapped out over the course of this new development. It is not our intent that the Trans-Labrador Highway be delayed while these decisions are being made; and

WHEREAS employment issues for people adjacent to this development have to be addressed immediately to ensure significant, sufficient employment benefits accrue to Labrador people who qualify for positions that may become available; and

WHEREAS we do not wish to see any unnecessary delays in this development and it is therefore the wish of the undersigned that this project move forward immediately;

THEREFORE we are petitioning government to partner with community groups to deal with the issue of local employment in the immediate and the long-term issues of economic and social infrastructure for our communities, comprising a joint committee made up of zonal board representatives in the zone who will enable us to move forward with this development, ensuring maximum benefits at the end of the day for all.

Mr. Speaker, the people in communities of my district feel compelled to make their position on this issue clear to ensure that this project proceeds on schedule. It has taken twenty years of hard work and lobbying on behalf of many people in Coastal Labrador to finally get to this point in our history, the point where our communities will be released from isolation and given free access to each other and the rest of the country.

The communities of Coastal Labrador went through a recession in the early 1990s like the rest of the country. They have suffered major economic and social setbacks as a result of the fishery closure. Today this highway is giving them and their communities an opportunity to expand and rebuild. It is giving them the opportunity to ensure sustainable industry development, and the opportunity to be a competitive player in the nation's trade and development practices.

Most importantly, and we should stress this, it is the opportunity to build stronger, viable communities to ensure a homeland for future generations of southeast coast Labradorians. It is also the opportunity for the people who want to stay in that area and choose to live in that area to be able to do so at a pace that is convenient for them.

The people feel they are being challenged by others in Labrador with regard to this development. The EIS process, as we all know, allows for input from all people, and we respect that right. However, recent opinions expressed in the media and through other forms by the Innu Nation and the Metis Nation have caused concern for people all along the Coast of Labrador, as is evident from this petition to the House of Assembly today.

I want to point out that we on the Coast of Labrador respect the rights of the Aboriginal people in our society, those who live in our communities and adjacent to our communities. The Innu Nation has no land claims in the area that is being proposed by this highway, the section of road between Cartwright and Red Bay. What we would say to the Innu Nation, as communities and people that are affected, is to show the same level of respect and support for the people in our communities and in our regions in trying to deal with the economic challenges that face us, and to show us the same support and respect to the degree that we have shown them in dealing with the social challenges in their communities, the support that we have given to the Innu Nation in rebuilding the community of Sango Bay and in other projects.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say to the Metis Nation and the Metis Nation Board of Directors and leaders -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: Can I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, just a few seconds to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Metis Nation: Listen to your membership, because they are the people who are represented in this petition today. They are the same communities and the same members that your organization stands and supports. They have signed this petition. They are giving direction to the organization. Although we welcome them as a partner in this process, we do not welcome them as an impediment to such a crucial and important development across Labrador.

I am going to try and clue up, but I want to ask that the government immediately embark on a process with the leaders in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the community councils, the economic development boards and others, to develop the best services and infrastructure that can be implemented to service these communities. The people of Coastal Labrador do not want to see this road prolonged unnecessarily. They feel that the economic and social issues that have to be dealt with will be dealt with over the course of this development, to everyone's satisfaction.

I ask that the other groups who have expressed interest and opposition to this particular development understand the plea of the people in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and in particular, in the communities from Lodge Bay to Cartwright, and respect the wishes of those people as they move forward with this development to deal with the economic challenges that have faced their community today and in the past. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in the House today to fully support the petition put forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. The only regret I have about the petition put forward is that the road is not going to be built in my riding. Certainly, coming from a rural community in Coastal Labrador, I fully understand the hardships that both the riding of Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair and my riding have encountered in the past years with the transportation of getting fish to the market on time. Usually we have to send it out by boat, which takes a lot longer, and it certainly slows down the whole process and interferes with the whole operation.

I fully support the member's request and certainly I, representing the riding of Torngat Mountains, will talk to some of the members in the Innu nation to do whatever is possible to try and get all parties to the table, to sit down with government and to do what is right. Certainly land claims play a very important role, but I believe it is time for all parties to come to the table and address these problems in fair manner and a quick manner.

I can assure the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair and the people in her riding that I will certainly ask government to do that. I support her resolution. I guess until people fully understand the difficulty in trying to get things done in Coastal Labrador where there are no roads, then I hope that all members in the House here can only support the petition put forward. Again, I support it wholeheartedly. To the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, I will certainly support you in every way.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to stand for a few minutes today to fully support the petition put forward by the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

Whenever we talk about Labrador, and the two members who have just spoken know better than anybody what this means in the development of Labrador, in the `big land' as we call it, for so many years. We are right on the threshold now of some very positive developments for Labrador in the coming years, of course, with economic and social developments and so on.

It is so important that we get together and, as the member said, with the respect of the Aboriginal (inaudible) nature, that we come together and expedite this whole process so that it is done fairly and is done so that everyone can be in compliance with exactly what needs to be done here; but, at the end of the day, that this does not drag on and on, so that the economic and social development of Labrador can take place.

I fully support, and our caucus fully supports, the member in her pursuit of this - to do it as fast as possible and as fair as possible but, one way or another, to speed up the process so that it is not dragged for a long time so these benefits are lost to the people of Labrador. This road system is long overdue. In speaking to the people of the Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair area - I have spoken to them many times on visits to the area - I understand how important this is for further development in this particular area, and also how important it is for the well-being of the Member for Torngat Mountains.

I fully support you in your efforts, and hopefully we will come to a conclusion to this in the not-too-distant future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. McLEAN: Can I get leave to speak for just a minute or two on this?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly pleased to speak on behalf of this petition here today. We, on this side of the House, have worked long and hard to ensure that the funding was made available for the kinds of development that we have had here in this petition. It has been a long time coming and I certainly support the fact that we cannot wait any longer to see the development that we need on the South Coast.

Many communities are suffering on the coast because of the transportation network. This kind of development is the type of development that will ensure the security of the communities that are along the South Coast of Labrador for the next many years.

As part of the government that has gone out and gotten the funding that we require to build this portion of the road, I believe it is not the kind of issue we need to be discussing when groups are looking for control. The environmental process is in place to take care of the environmental concerns that we have. There are many processes in place that will handle those kinds of issues.

Mr. Speaker, I believe, now that we have the funding for this particular highway, I want to see - and I believe all members of this House want to see - the development of this particular highway take place starting this year, this coming construction season.

We have laid out a construction program for this year and next year, and I believe it would be very detrimental if we have to wait an extra year because the funding is all based on the premise that we start this year the process of building an all-year highway and then we can reduce the cost of the shipping that we have to pay for right now so that we will ensure ourselves we will have the money to do it, if we can do it this year.

I would support the petition in the sense that I will also be talking, along with the Member for Torngat Mountains, with the groups that are having a problem with allowing this to go ahead. I think we should all support those kinds of developments because it is progressive for our people and especially the people on the Southern Coast of Labrador, as they will be in the stream of advancement towards much better forms of transportation with the highway linkage.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. DECKER: Motions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

MR. SPEAKER: Motions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act". (Bill No. 51)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to introduce the following bills:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act." (Bill No. 45)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act (No.2)". (Bill No. 49)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Imposition Of A Charge Related To The Provision Of Certain Government Services". (Bill No. 52)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991". (Bill No. 54)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Home Support Services Provided To Persons In Self-Managed Care". (Bill No. 56)

On motion, Bill Nos. 51, 45, 49, 52, 54 and 56 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am going to call second reading on Order 13. The Minister of Finance should he should be here shortly.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have been abandoned, Chris.

MR. DECKER: I have been abandoned. In that case I will call Order 17, An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act. I am sure I am here, so I will speak to that bill.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act." (Bill No. 34).

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, since coming into force approximately a year-and-a-half ago, the Judgement Enforcement Act has been a success. The act sets out a comprehensive statutory framework for executing on money judgements, something that Newfoundland previously lacked, and provides for procedural and administrative machinery, and an up-to-date computerized registry necessary for the effective and efficient enforcement processes.

During the implementation process however, a number of issues - largely technical in nature - that require additional clarifications have arisen.

For the information of the House, these issues include such things as: clarification of a number of definitions to make the act consistent with similar legislation in other jurisdictions; for example, the Alberta Civil Enforcement Act. The clarification of the process for the registration of federal court orders on the judgement enforcement registry; clarification of the process by which creditors can obtain information from debtors as to their ability to satisfy judgements against them; amendments which allow the court to vary an income exemption certificate by taking into account the family responsibilities and personal situation of the debtor, and clarification of provisions dealing with limitation periods under the act.

The bill addresses all of these housekeeping issues. The proposed amendment is consistent with the original policy objectives of the act as passed in December of 1996 and proclaimed June 1. There are no new policy issues raised in this amendment.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few comments on Bill No. 34, An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act.

As the minister indicated, a number of months ago new legislation was introduced and passed in this House dealing with a reform with respect to judgement enforcement in this Province. What it does is essentially both codifies and eases the circumstances surrounding the enforcement of judgements in this Province, and benefits that accrued to, I guess, judges, the Sheriff's Office, solicitors, and the public at large.

The act was passed in December of 1996 and it enabled judgements and allowed courts, I guess, through seizure and garnishment, to deal effectively with the enforcement of judgements in this Province.

It was amended again in 1997, and is now being amended again to remove, as the minister indicated, certain errors and anomalies, to clarify certain powers of sheriffs and judges, and to facilitate the operation of the judgement enforcement system created in this act.

The minister indicated that there was a computer component, I suppose, involved in this amendment from the point of view that it helps facilitate as we progress technologically. The act also had to change to reflect a better way to enforce judgements in this Province and how these judgements can be best circulated, made public, and essentially effected in the Province.

The Judgement Enforcement Act amendment is divided into fifteen parts. Under sections 1-24 the general provisions; then a section under pre-judgement relief, sections 25-36; a provision under notice of judgement, sections 37-63; information regarding enforcement, under sections 64 and 69; the seizure of personal property, under sections 70-81; special seizure mechanisms, under sections 82 through to 99; dealing with land, sections 100-109; garnishment, under sections 110-125; receivers and special remedies, under sections 126 through to 128; exemptions, beginning with section 129-149; distribution, sections 150-158; disputes, sections 159-167; impeachable transactions, under sections 168-180; then the regulation provisions, under sections 181-184; and then the penalty provisions and other miscellaneous provisions, from 185 through to section 205.

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that this is an amendment. It is an amendment to new legislation which passed approximately one year ago, notwithstanding the fact that we have seen an amendment even since then, prior to this particular amendment being introduced at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is generally agreed upon and felt by most people in the legal community dealing with the enforcement of judgements, that this act has been generally well received. It has helped particularly the Sheriff's Office, in organizing in that particular office the whole role of the enforcement of judgements, and consequently has benefit to the public at large.

There are a couple of sections in particular that I think are worth referring to because they are specifically relating to this particular amendment, and it refers to some of the definition sections. For example, the term `deposit account' is now being changed from the following: a demand time, savings or saving passbook or similar account at a bank. It is being changed to: a chequing/savings demand or similar account at a bank, trust company, credit union or other deposit-taking institution in the Province but does not include an account or arrangement under which money is deposited for a fixed term, whether or not the term may be abridged, extended or renewed.

So we see here the beginning of the provision for not only dealing with a demand or similar account at a bank but including as well a trust company, a credit union, and not to exclude any deposit-taking institution. So again we see, I suppose, simply an expansion of the legislation which is now law in this Province. We see an expansion through this amendment to help not only, I guess, the sheriff's office, but the public at large in dealing with the impact of this legislation.

We see for example, the definition of enforcement proceedings, even the term judgement. As the minister indicated in his preliminary remarks, we see reference now being made to the Small Claims Act and the Federal Court Act. Again, it is a widening of the jurisdiction to meet, I guess, demands that this Province and the people in this Province are now faced with.

In expanding that definition it is interesting to note that although the definition of judgement is now expanded to include the Small Claims Act and the Federal Court Act, it does not include a support order as defined in the Support Orders Enforcement Act, except as provided in section 13. So there is an exception to that overall principal.

The term personal property registry is added, meaning the personal property registry established under the Personal Property Security Act. We are awaiting second reading and committee stage with respect to the Personal Property Security Act. Once implemented, of course, by extension, we will then have the significance of the term personal property registry as it relates to the Judgement Enforcement Act.

The term small claims creditor is added, in clause 1(5), meaning "a creditor in whose favour there is a notice of judgement with respect to a money judgement made under the Small Claims Act." Essentially we have a broadening of, I guess, judicial jurisdiction as it relates to judgement enforcement to deal with the small claims jurisdiction and the Federal Court Act, but excluding the provisions of support orders.

There are a few other clauses I would like to refer to briefly. One is under clause 4 of the legislation. It amends section 16 of the Act regarding cause of action by repealing paragraph (b) below and making a substitution. I would just like to refer to section 16(1):

Except as otherwise provided in this Act, a person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of another person's failure to comply with the Act has a cause of action against the other person with respect to that failure and (b) is entitled, if the court finds that a loss or damage has been suffered, to a judgement for the damages suffered or $200, whichever is greater.

Essentially, that would include almost all judgements when we look at the amount of $200.

The substitution reads:

"(b) is entitled, if the court or the Provincial Court where the amount claimed does not exceed the jurisdictional limits of that court, finds that a loss or damage has been suffered, to a judgement for the damages suffered or $200, whichever is greater".

It is interesting to note that the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court or Small Claims Court in this Province has not been amended for a significant period of time. Right now the limit is still relatively small, and there is some pressure, I may add, being placed on the department and on the minister to increase the jurisdiction so that more matters can be heard in the Provincial Court. Because the Provincial Court is designed to deal with the public on a day to day basis. Many people who appear in Provincial Court, in the Small Claims Division, are unrepresented. The costs of proceedings in the Small Claims Court are relatively minor compared to what can be very expensive and costly proceedings for litigants once they go from the Provincial Court, Small Claims Division, to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, Trial Division.

It is hoped that we may see an expansion in the not to distant future to increase the limit, where we are dealing with liquidated damages, or contract, or land-lord tenant law, or a dispute between a buyer and a seller. We would like to see an increase in that limit so that more people may have access to small claims court and will allow them to litigate differences and disputes, at the same time limiting the expenses they are facing. Mr. Speaker, there would be an opportunity, I would suggest, in the near future to have such changes made again for the betterment of the public at large.

Another clause I would like to refer to is clause 14. Clause 14 amends section 65 of the act regarding the sheriff questionnaire by repealing the entire section and making a substitution. The section currently reads as follow:

65.(1) A person who is required to submit to an examination under Section 66 shall deliver a questionnaire to the sheriff regarding the matters upon which they may be properly examined.

Under 65.(2), it says: A questionnaire under this Part shall be in the required form.

The substitution in clause 14 reads as follows, under section 65.(1): "A creditor may instruct the sheriff to serve a questionnaire on a person who may be required to submit to an examination under section 66 to be completed and returned to the sheriff for the purpose of determining the ability of the debtor to satisfy the claim of the creditor."

Under section 65.(2) it says: "A questionnaire under this Part shall be in the required form."

Then the new section, under section 65.(3), reads: "A person served with a questionnaire under subsection (1) shall return the completed questionnaire to the sheriff within 15 days of service."

There is now a time limitation that must be followed by anybody who is dealing with the questionnaire with respect to the sheriff's office in terms of an examination under section 66. Of course, an examination under section 66 deals with when a party is simply to provide information to the sheriff's office with respect to property that he or she may own, or assets that he or she may own, in response to a judgement which has been filed against that particular individual.

Another clause worthy of some note is clause 20. It amends section 121 of the Act regarding employment earnings by removing subsection 5 from the following subsection.

Section 121(1) reads: Unless permitted under subsection 147.(5), a garnishee order shall not be issued with respect to the debtor's employment earnings. The word "subsection" should be changed to section as well, since it refers to Section 147. We see reference now being made to the impact that a judgement may have on one's employment earnings.

Also in clause 21 we see reference again to deposit accounts. Under section 123.(2): a garnishee order that attaches a joint account only attaches that portion of the joint entitlement that is a current obligation.

There is some, I guess, investigative component to ensure that the only component which is the subject matter of the litigation and the judgement itself does not have an umbrella effect with respect to joint accounts that, of course, may be owned by two or more people.

Under clause 23 we see amendments to section 135 of the act regarding other dispositions of exempt property. Subclause 1 repeals (2) below and makes the following substitution. I now read Section 135.(4):

where the sheriff approves the sale of property under subsection (1) from the proceeds of the sale of the debtor is entitled to an amount equal to the lesser of (a) the net proceeds of the sale; (b) the value of the exemption prescribed by regulation for property of that type; and (c) the value of the exemption prescribed by regulation for property of that type, less the total of the value of the property, money or deposit account that is exempt under paragraph 134(a) with respect to the property of that type and (2) the value of the property of that type which the debtor continues to own.

The new paragraph (ii) reads: "the value of the property of that type which the debtor continues to own, including property to which subsection (5) applies."

Again we see an expansion and widening of property that is impacted by this subsection presumably, in this case, to the benefit of the sheriff and any individual trying to enforce the judgement.

The act I guess in many ways attempts to clarify anomalies which have existed in the last twelve months. I know the High Sheriff of Newfoundland was quite pleased I guess, in discussions I have had with him, in the fact that we have now a codified Judgement Enforcement Act which attempts to simplify all proceedings with respect to judgement enforcement in this Province. Generally speaking, it can be said that this amendment only goes to further clarify the legislation, which is now twelve months old, in an effort to expedite these proceedings, to meet, I guess, technological change, and to presumably, in the long run, assist all parties in an effort to refine these proceedings, which generally, historically and traditionally, have been quite difficult throughout this Province. Now we have a codification of the law which ultimately should be a benefit to all parties concerned.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak briefly on Bill 34, An Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act. This is a piece of legislation which was presented in this House in December of 1996. It was a very comprehensive piece of legislation changing the law with respect to the enforcement of judgements against personal property and also to register security interests in personal property affected by this legislation.

The whole issue of enforcement of judgement is a complex matter. It involves an assessment of the rights of both creditors and debtors to the extent that the law is trying to be fair between them. This legislation that was presented just a short time ago was presented to the House as a comprehensive amendment to the legislation, as something that was new. We certainly would have expected some fine tuning of the legislation, but I am somewhat surprised to see some thirty-seven clauses, including in excess of almost fifty amendments to the legislation. It does bring into question, perhaps, the procedure that we are using in this House to actually vet new legislation of this nature.

A number of years ago the House adopted rules which provided for legislative committees to consider legislation. In some cases these committees have done very good work. One would expect that a bill of this nature, with a fair degree of technical actions involved in it, a fair degree of trying to achieve fairness between debtor and creditor, would have been subjected to that kind of process. Perhaps some of the people involved, such as the Sheriff's Office, such as the people from the Department of Justice, such as people involved in the credit collection agencies, such as lawyers and law society members who deal with clients and deal with questions of this nature, could have been invited to participate and scrutinize the legislation, and perhaps reveal some of the flaws at an earlier date.

It seems that we are not using this process. What we are doing in fact is passing legislation, putting it out there, and having it test driven after it has been passed, as opposed to be subjected to the right kind of scrutiny beforehand. I question that in the first instance, because we do have a lot of changes here. I am not suggesting that all of them are unnecessary. What I am suggesting is that perhaps some of them could have been rendered unnecessary by a proper run through the first time and proper consideration by the legislative committees of this House before it was passed.

Most of the amendments are of a technical nature. I am not going to commend on a lot of them, but I want to comment on clause 13 of the act. I hope the Minister of Justice is listening to my comments on that. This has to do with the provision of questionnaires to creditors. The section reads as follows. On the marginal notes, the so-called marginal notes refer to something called voluntary questionnaires. That is in the marginal note and not in the section, but the section says as follows, "64.(1) A creditor may serve a questionnaire on the debtor to be completed and returned to the creditor for the purpose of determining the ability of the debtor to satisfy the claims of the creditor."

The next section then says: "(2) A debtor shall return the completed questionnaire to the creditor within 15 days of service."

Then, section 3, "A creditor shall provide the sheriff with a copy of a questionnaire completed by a debtor at the time he or she issues first instructions to the sheriff."

Mr. Speaker, this is clearly intended to be a voluntary process. Yet, on the other hand, if you look at the section without looking at the marginal note, it is pretty clear that someone in a position of a creditor can, in fact, serve a document on a creditor - this is someone who has a judgement against him - with a questionnaire. I have seen them. I have had people call me complaining about it. They have received this questionnaire. It comes from a lawyer and says: We are acting on behalf of so and so who has a judgement against you. Enclosed please find the questionnaire which you are required to return within fifteen days.

If they quoted them section 64.(2) of the act, "A debtor shall return the completed questionnaire to the creditor within 15 days of service."

I do not think it is fair to have included in the act a requirement of a creditor to return a questionnaire which is rather detailed. I have seen these questionnaires. They ask about all kinds of assets, debts and obligations of a creditor, a whole series of questions which they must answer according to this. A debtor shall return the completed questionnaire to the creditor within 15 days of service. That is a very intimidating document, usually coming from a lawyer and quite often coming at the behest of a credit agency who is using this legislation, or using the act, as part of its collection process.

The legislation is very unclear. In the marginal note it says voluntary questionnaire but there is nothing in the section to indicate that the questionnaire is voluntary at all. These questionnaires ask a great deal of personal information. I have seen them. They are intimidating documents to receive. I think it should be made clear in any questionnaire, or in the service of any questionnaire, that this questionnaire does not have to be completed by the debtor and returned within fifteen days; that the answering of this questionnaire is a voluntary process.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I know, if a constituent of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture received a questionnaire in the mail because they owed $250 to somebody who has a judgement against them by default or otherwise, with twenty-five or thirty questions saying that you must fill out this questionnaire, send it back within fifteen days to some lawyer who you never hear of before - how much money do you have in the bank? Where are your bank accounts? How much money do you owe? What is your income? What is your spouse's income? All this sort of stuff. And have some lawyer to be able to say: Well, according to section 64.(2) of the act, "A debtor shall return the completed questionnaire to the creditor within 15 days of service."

That is not right. That is a voluntary process and it is indicated in the marginal notes - little tiny words on the side of the legislation - not indicated in the act. I have had people call me and say: I have this questionnaire. It comes from a lawyer, and it says I have to fill it out and send it back.

I said: I do not think so. That does not sound right to me, a lawyer writing you a letter, a lawyer you never heard of giving you a questionnaire saying: You fill this out and send it back within fifteen days stating all of your assets and liabilities, what money you have in the bank, and what accounts you have. It is not right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, what ought to be done in this legislation: It should be required that any creditor sending such a questionnaire under this particular section of the act, to a debtor, that there ought to be a requirement that the debtor be notified that the completion of this questionnaire is, in fact, a voluntary process.

If that is not there, debtors, for whatever amount - and whether it is a default judgement or whether it is a situation where they have fully been contested and lost their case - can be intimidated by this process if otherwise.

I have seen some of the practices that are used in terms of collection. It does not have to come from a lawyer. It could just come a credit agency serving this thing, and they can put in big bold print on the front of a questionnaire: We are hereby serving this questionnaire upon you in accordance with section 64 of the Judgement Enforcement Act.

Section 64.(2) says, "A debtor shall return the completed questionnaire to the creditor within 15 days of service." They can legitimately quote this act without telling people that the completion of a questionnaire in these circumstances is a voluntary process, that they do not have to do it.

We have seen practices in this Province, collection practices by collection agencies, intimidating practices. We have had to put in legislation to prevent creditors and collection agencies from calling people at work and harassing them. We had to put that legislation into effect to prevent that from happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible) to stop them.

MR. HARRIS: I am not sure it stops them. Laws do not necessarily stop people but it provides for an enforcement against them if they do.

AN HON. MEMBER: It should stop them.

MR. HARRIS: It should stop them. Human Rights Codes do not guarantee human rights either. Human Rights Codes do not guarantee that people's rights will not be violated, whether it is outside of this House or in this House. They do not guarantee that but they can provide guidelines and they can provide an enforcement mechanism.

In this circumstance it is fundamentally wrong to provide an opportunity to somebody who is unscrupulous - I am not castigating any group of people, whether they be credit collectors in general or whether they be lawyers in general, or whether they be members of this House in general. What I am saying is that this leaves an opening to someone to abuse this section and use it to intimidate creditors, to send them a questionnaire.

Supposing you owed $50 to somebody - you did not pay your bill - and they went and got a collection agency to get it. They get a judgement against you somehow or other, and then you get a questionnaire and they can quote this act saying, "A debtor shall return the completed questionnaire to the creditor within 15 days of service." It is not required, yet the act clearly says, "A debtor shall return the completed questionnaire to the creditor within 15 days of service."

Something is wrong here and I hope the Minister of Justice will either amend it himself or accept an amendment at third reading which would require creditors in these circumstances to serve a questionnaire on the debtor to be completed, returned for the purpose of determining the ability of the debtor to satisfy the claims, but the creditor must be notified, along with the service of that questionnaire, that this is a voluntary process. That has to happen if it is not going to be unfair to creditors in these circumstances.

When we are looking at these kinds of rules, they may be highly technical in natural, they may be for arcane activities of bureaucracies for enforcement, of bureaucracies for keeping records, of lawyers and enforcements processes and all of that stuff - the Sheriff's Office and his staff down there trying to understand the act and apply the act - but there are lots of issues of fairness that are involved in enforcing judgements. Because an enforcement of a judgement means that this is a legal right of someone to collect debts by taking your assets, by going to the bank and telling the bank - if you, Mr. Speaker, had money in an account, saying: Don't give that money to the Speaker; give that to me, the creditor.

This legislation gives them the right to do that type of thing, to come and take your property, take your motor vehicle, take your personal possessions, up to a certain point. These are very, very serious issues of property rights, of fairness as between people who have judgement against others.

We are not talking about the kind of run-of-the mill issue of someone who goes to court and one company gets a judgement against another company. These people are quite capable of having legal representation and fight it out in the courts and pay lawyer's bills to look after their interests in disputes with other companies, with other individuals, whether it is insurance companies or big business operations.

This Judgement Enforcement Act is used against every creditor, including very small bills that are being collected - $100, $200, $300, $500 - through the Small Claims Court process, as a means, a mechanism, of actually collecting the money, in many cases, off people who may well not be able to afford to pay. They might not even be able to afford to go bankrupt.

I don't know if you know, Mr. Speaker, that it costs money to go bankrupt in this Province, in this country. If you do not have $1,000 or $1,200 to pay to an accountant to help you go bankrupt, you cannot go bankrupt. Some people actually cannot afford to go bankrupt because they do not have the money to pay an accountant to declare them bankrupt.

I know the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture finds that laughable, that there are people who cannot afford -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: No, no, I find it laughable to say that somebody cannot afford to go bankrupt. That is laughable. I think it is laughable, but there are a lot of people in this Province who owe very small debts, who cannot afford to pay them, who cannot afford to fight against unfair processes that are taken out against them because they do not have the means of hiring a lawyer to act in their interests, and it is not a matter that will be looked after by Legal Aid.

So the protection of those people has to come from this Legislature. It has to come from the laws that are there, designed to be fair to people and to provide protection to all citizens of this Province, not just those of the Member for Deer Lake, not just those of the member who represents Deer Lake. They are there to represent and protect all people.

I would like the minister to consider that, along with his officials, to have a good look at clause 13 of the legislation and consider what ought to be put in place to ensure that creditors are not led to believe that there is a statutory requirement for them to fill out this questionnaire when in fact that is not the case. I think that is important.

There are some positive things. Along the same line, I recognize that the amendment attempts to be fair and reasonable in circumstances such as clause 27 of the act which allows the sheriff to deal with fluctuating incomes for people. If you have a creditor who has a monthly repayment schedule in place, based on an income exemption that is spelled out in the act, often the payment schedule is -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, you have not announced any questions for the Late Show, so I'm assuming there aren't any questions. I wonder could we have leave to go to 5:00 p.m.? Would this be agreeable to members?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: It is an adjournment, you see. Do we have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. DECKER: Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I say, there are some positive provisions on the fairness note here, section 27, I point out. For the first time the new Judgement Enforcement Act permitted the putting into place a judgement repayment schedule. A person, instead of having a judgement against him, say for $5,000, that judgement which would allow someone to come in and take their money - whatever money they can get their hands on - this new procedure allows for a process whereby a person can have that judgement for the full amount translated into a monthly payment schedule. That periodic payment schedule is subject to what is called the exemptions. Those exemptions deal with the amount of income the person has, on the number of dependents that a person has.

Of course, as we know these things can vary from time to time. We have a lot of arrangements for care of children these days: joint custody arrangements, or shared custody arrangements, whereby one spouse may be caring for several children for one period of time and the other spouse for another period. This could effect their ability to pay on a judgement. This section gives the sheriff the right to increase or decrease the income exemptions for a particular month because of circumstances that may be available. They may increase them for one month and decrease them for another month. This provides some flexibility, and I can see where this is necessary.

There has to be, I think, an element of flexibility and fairness there. As I say, I have not looked at every single section of this act and amendment, so I accept that there is a need to amend and fix up things that haven't, on second review, worked out right. I think we have a lot of them here for a very new act. It questions our legislative process and whether or not we are using the talents of members of the House, on both sides, to adequately review this legislation before we put it into place. I guess we did not really do a good enough job the first time around, otherwise we would not have fifty amendments in a period of one year and a half.

Saying that and I support the general principles of fixing the legislation to accommodate the problems that have arisen. I ask the minister to pay particular attention to what is being done in respect to clause 13. Hopefully we will see an amendment at third reading stage on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he closes the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "Act To Amend The Judgement Enforcement Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 34)

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 13, Bill 16.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act". (Bill No. 16)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill is pretty technical in nature. The current act provides a difficult mechanism to determine which securities the Province can invest in.

As members know, the Province manages a considerable portfolio. We have several billion dollars' worth of assets, we run a treasury bill program, and the challenge is for us to determine what the money should be invested in. As well, we have tax monies on hand. At any given time we might have in the order of several hundred of millions of dollars at various times, depending on when we receive proceeds of bond issues and so forth.

The act is a minor change in a way, but there is an issue of security for the government pensions, for the cash we have on hand, and we need to make sure they are well invested. What we are doing is changing the Financial Administration Act to automatically provide and give discretion to the people who do our investments for us to, if you read section (1), invest in securities "...that have been included in the highest rating category in each of the 5 years immediately preceding the date of investment by at least 2 security rating institutions in Canada or the United States and are approved by Lieutenant-Governor in Council prior to being acquired."

So it has to meet both criteria. Firstly, it has to meet a very severe rating test, and secondly, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has to approve those as well.

The members have often heard in this House, and questions have been asked, about the Province's rating. As members know, there are rating agencies, the most notable of which are Standard and Poor's and Moody's which rate corporations, governments, (inaudible) borrowers, according to their financial credit worthiness. What this requires, of course, is that the Province would only invest in those corporations or trust companies that have the highest rating in the previous five years, preceding the date of investment. We believe that provides ample and due security for the investments of the Province.

Secondly, and this is clause 2, we would amend the Financial Administration Act to permit payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to finance the unfunded liabilities of pension plans. As hon. members know, in this year's Budget we provided $193 million out of revenues that are current this year to be set aside and to address liabilities that have accrued and not been funded in years past. What this will do is, of course, allow us to make the payment out of the revenues into the pension plans, and allow the pension monies to be invested and to have the pensions become better funded.

As well, the Newfoundland Government Sinking Fund, which are monies that we set aside to retire bond issues when they come due, and of course are kept invested, these funds would also be permitted to be invested in those corporations and trust company securities that are listed in paragraph (1).

Clause 4 would amend section 39 of the Act and would enable the Newfoundland Government Sinking Fund, within certain parameters, to engage in securities lending activities. These are set forth here under Clause 4(6). The trustee of the plan:

"may lend to a company, bonds and securities held by the Newfoundland Government Sinking Fund under section 38, provided that (a) neither the company nor the trustee is an associate of each other."

It sets out under (b) that "the book value... to any one company is not more that 10 per cent of the book value of the assets...," and so forth.

I invite hon. members to peruse the materials or the criteria set forth here.

Lastly, in clause 5, it says the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may raise loans to make payments toward the reduction of the unfunded liabilities of the pension plans. That, Mr. Speaker, I think, is fairly straightforward as well.

Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make a few brief comments on Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act.

There is one point that I think is worthy of some response, and it may come up perhaps in greater detail when we get to Committee stage when the minister will have an opportunity to respond.

I would like to go to clause 5. In clause 5 of this bill it amends the act to permit the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to raise loans "...without the further authority of the legislature," to make payments towards the reduction of the unfunded liabilities of those pensions to which the Pensions Funding Act applies.

It always makes me nervous when I see this sort of exemption and reference to the fact that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make important decisions as it relates to the financial administration of plans - whether they be pension plans or funding with respect to the Pension Funding Act, in this case -, when I see reference to "...without the further authority of the legislature."

When we enter into the Committee portion and in the furtherance of debate with respect to Bill 16, I would be interested in hearing from the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board exactly what has prompted, under clause 5, the minister to now say that there would be no further authority of the Legislature, and in fact the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make decisions with respect to the raising of loans.

It is an important question and I think it is a reference that I look forward to in terms of a response from the minister. Simply, why this Legislature, why this Assembly, and why the people of the Province are not in a position to participate in this decision making.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member indicated, most of the bill is straightforward and I think recommends itself to the House.

On the last section, Section 5, I share the hon. member's concern. I don't believe that, as a rule, the House should divest itself of the authority to have people come back, or governments come back, to get specific authority to borrow funds for a purpose. However, I believe this is a reasonable exception for this reason.

The provincial pension funds are tremendously unfunded. As we speak the Teachers' Pension Fund, for example, is probably only about 16 per cent to 17 per cent funded. What the hon. member may know is that as part of the recent agreement with the NLTA, in which we negotiated changes to their pension plan, we also at the same time indicated we would borrow funds and repay the money over a fixed period of time. I believe it is approximately twelve years. I do not have details with me. What we believe is appropriate in this case is that although it does not require the government come back to the House, money can only be raised for the purpose of providing funding to the pension plans. That amount will be disclosed in the budget each year and, in a sense, is part of the general expenditures approved by this House. Thirdly it represents, in essence, a contractual commitment with the NLTA, for example, to do it.

The other thing we have indicated, without giving specific amounts, is that we will also, as time and circumstance permit, seek to have additional funds put into the PSPP which is improving but is still under 50 per cent funded. I have not seen the figures lately, but probably in the vicinity of about 44 per cent or 45 per cent. So I think if the hon. members look closely at this, it is restricted solely for that purpose, and the figures will be disclosed in the budget in any given year as well. It is just that you would not have to come back specifically for authority to do that. For that reason, and given the fact that our pension funds are so drastically underfunded, and as well we have in essence a contractual commitment with the NLTA, I believe it is a reasonable proposal to put to the Legislature.

As the hon. member says, I will be happy to deal with any specific concerns members may have in Committee. I therefore move second reading. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 16)

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

MR. DECKER: Order No. 14, Bill No. 8, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act."

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act". (Bill No. 8)

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is going to be a very short explanation of the minor amendments we are making to the Aquaculture Act. What we are doing here is making the amendments to the Aquaculture Act that are necessary to make some minor changes and controls of the aquaculture industry as a condition of license, so that every time you have to change a regulation or move a regulation you do not have to go back to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. In other words, you don't have to go to Cabinet. We are making changes to the Aquaculture Act, giving the minister more power to make it a condition of license that we can move forward and not stay still or stagnant in aquaculture. Move forward the aquaculture industry.

It is for two reasons only. For example, under clause 1 we want to repeal something and the following substituted:

"(a) incorporate into the license a plan relating to (i) health, safety and environmental matters, and (ii) resource utilization and sustainable development."

In other words, that would be a condition of license. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank them for the welcome.

I have a few comments. It can be a dangerous thing putting more power in the hands of that minister and taking it from Cabinet. That could be a very dangerous thing, I can tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give it to him. Give it to him!

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am in a kinder mood today, I say. I even took it easy on the Minister of Health and Community Services today.

There are certain things there. One of the conditions, especially with aquaculture development too - we are dealing with species in captivity, the risk to health aspects. We are hearing numerous things today with BST, I think, to enhance milk production and so on. Scientists are speaking out about some side effects. There are a lot of concerns.

In second reading, the minister might be able to relate some of the provincial concerns or things they have done, for instance in Bay d'Espoir. It has been in the media a bit lately. I heard it on CBC radio a while back which I was driving in. He could talk on some of the aspects of dealing with aquaculture. It is a new area, it is a growing area. It is not new to the world at all, but in this Province it is a growing industry, let's put it that way. It is in the embryonic stages in this Province compared to others. There are certain biological aspects, certain feeds, certain captivities, certain diseases, and various things that can be transmitted.

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you have any questions for the Minister of Health and Community Services?

MR. SULLIVAN: The clock ran out on me. I only had one minute today, I say to my colleague.

The dangerous part of it, I would say, is giving the minister more powers and taking them away from Cabinet. When you get fifteen or sixteen people around the table you will usually get more sanity there sometimes than you do by having one, and sometimes it is reversed. I think John F. Kennedy said at a dinner where there were 240 people: There was never more intelligence in a group of people gathered together in one room since Thomas Jefferson dined alone. Sometimes it is good to have it in the hands of one when they know what they are doing, but sometimes to put it in the hands of somebody who doesn't know what they are doing could be very dangerous.

It is important, I must add, with respect to giving powers for markings of aquaculture gear and so on. Things of that nature are things that I don't think the Cabinet has to sit around and try to decide on regulations governing certain aspects. There are aspects here, I think, that do really go beyond the minister in authority. In terms of health, it affects other departments. Environment has an effect on other ministers. I know certain regulations empower ministers in these areas. It really is the empowering of a minister and it is a lessening of the authority, basically, of Cabinet to have a say in these.

There are certain concerns there, I might add, and I certainly want to go on record as putting -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: At least as far as I can throw them, I would say. Maybe farther, who knows.

I just wanted to make those points. I am sure our fisheries critic too, who I spoke with, who is unavoidably absent on a commitment while the bill is being discussed here today, will have some comments in Committee stage of the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to speak to Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act. I have no problem with certain aspects of the bill, that when a person gets a license there ought to be contained within that license terms and conditions relating to access to a site, optimal resource utilization, and health, safety, and environment aspects. Because there are circumstances and situations. I know the Minister of Environment and Labour is aware of the need to ensure that aquaculture sites - if you are going to give a license to a particular person you have to ensure that access to that site is available to others who may have need to be there, whether for fishing purposes or other uses.

I think that is quite appropriate to include them in the license. I have no difficulty with this minister or any minister having that authority. Including in that license the health safety environmental plans and resource utilization plans seems to be fair enough.

I do have a little difficulty with the minister making regulations that can be changed any day of the week. I am not singling out this minister in particular, but he does have a reputation for, let's say, being one of the more partisan members of this House. I have a concern that these regulations may be a bit more malleable than they would be if they had to be established by Cabinet.

Looking at the proposed 11.2, clause 3 of the bill, there are an awful lot of things there. We are talking about regulations here. We are not talking about individual application of those regulations. They can certainly change from time to time. Having those regulations with the benefit of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council means at least that if they are going to be changed there is a process that has to be gone through. A paper would have to go to Cabinet and somebody would have to justify the changes in the regulations. Not on the basis of an individual's particular need or an exemption or an exception, but on the basis of a policy need as is spelled out in writing by an official of the department in a policy paper that has to go to Cabinet to justify, on policy grounds, a change in the regulations.

The minister has the right to make regulations. Those regulations can be made or changed at the behest or request of an individual who might find those regulations a little bit to onerous for their project, a little bit too expensive. It is too open to abuse. It is too open to changes being made to suit political needs as opposed to policy needs that government is responsible for.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I beg to differ with the minister. There may not be any aquaculture in Port de Grave, but the minister has a habit of looking after Liberals everywhere, whether they are in Port de Grave or not. I say to the minister this is what we are concerned about here, that this is an opportunity -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). There is nothing wrong with looking after Liberals.

MR. HARRIS: The minister says there is nothing wrong with looking after Liberals. No, Mr. Speaker, as long as you equally look after anyone who is not a Liberal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: He says he does not do that. He is denying that he looks after people who are not Liberals equally with those who are Liberals. Mr. Speaker, the minister admits to the fault I am pointing out with the bill, that the minister would have too much authority to change regulations based on his own personal objectives and meeting the needs of applicants for licenses. There is a fundamental problem here as a result of that. I think this bill should be opposed for that reason.

I do not support these changes to the aquaculture act. This is a relatively new development to this Province. It is something that is subject to a great deal of controversy in many parts of the world where aquaculture development has reached a level of intensity. There are competing interest of other users of the same water. The competing interest of environmental needs have caused very serious problems in British Columbia, Norway and other places where intensive aquaculture developments are taking place. There is a lot of potential biological problems where you are concentrating a biomass together in one particular area: a lot of fish or other species producing a lot of faeces, and a lot of organisms that are all concentrated in one area. There are a lot of issues that are complex, technical scientific issues. There is a lot of danger of having diseases explode out of an aquaculture project into the wild stock.

This is a very serious matter, I say to the minister. Not one where regulations that govern these things ought to be able to be changed very lightly, and particularly by ministerial fiat. The minister certainly has responsibility and, in the end, can be held responsible for what he or she does, as the case may be.

Mr. Speaker, that is the case in this House and in our system of ministerial responsibility. When the minister is in power to make regulations and change them at will, such as this legislation is granting - having been asked a series of questions from the opposite side as to whether I am looking for leave tomorrow, I will probably ask for leave tomorrow just as I did today and the day before. I hope that the same consideration should apply, whether I am speaking on a matter of principle today or whether I am not.

In summing up my opposition to this bill, I say we are giving too much power to the minister. Not because it is this minister; he is only the minister of the day. There may be another minister there tomorrow. There may be another government. I am saying this in an non-partisan way. There may be another government this time next year whose minister would have the same powers as are spelled out here.

I think it is going too far to give a minister this much power to make regulations over these important matters having to do with health, safety, and protection of the environment, all of which can be seriously affected by improper development of an aquaculture resource.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate. The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

It is the longest speech I have ever given.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 8)

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

MR. DECKER: Order 18, Bill No. 23.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act". (Bill No. 23)

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

MR. A. REID: Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, I know there are going to be people over on the other side who will want to speak on this.

This bill provides legislative authority for the new municipal assessment agency that we set up this year. Basically all it does is outlines the duties and responsibilities of the executive director. In addition, authority is also provided for municipalities to initiate assessment appeal fees. Remember, we talked about if there are people going to appeal their assessment, they just cannot come in and appeal.

The reason we are doing that - in one particular area, I believe it was Mount Pearl last year or the year before, there were 300 or 400 appeals and there were only forty or fifty people showed up, and you had to pay staff and get ready for it, that sort of thing. If you are going to make an appeal, then you have to have a fee to go along with it. If you win your appeal, or if you actually show up for your appeal, you will get it back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Yes, Bonavista.

As well, current responsibilities of the minister related to the assessment process - it is taking their authority from me, under the Assessment Act, and transferring it to the executive director of the agency who answers to the board of directors. It is basically taking all the authority from the minister and putting it over to that board. It is a good idea. We should do that with the RRAP program too, right?

The bill also contains several provisions that will have the effect of removing all current references to school tax authorities. Under the old bill - because back in a previous administration all the school tax regulations and so on were in that particular bill. We are going to take that out, too. That is all the bill is doing.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess when we get into third reading and into committee, we will certainly have the opportunity to question the minister. One of the things we would really like to find out is the fee that is going to be charged. I do not totally disagree with the minister. I served at one time as the town manager and we would have appeals made because somebody did not get their garbage picked up, or a stray dog ran across their backyard. You had a lawyer who you were paying probably $50 a case for, and you were hearing appeals that really had no bearing on why somebody's assessment was whatever the assessment was.

In this particular bill there are certainly a lot of things there that relate to us. I see here the School Tax Act, well that has certainly been gone and gone for quite some time.

Mr. Speaker, I will not take up any more of the time of the House this afternoon. I would like, when the minister does come back, if he can inform us of maybe what the fee will be for such an assessment for somebody who wishes to appeal a particular assessment; because there are assessments that are certainly, from time to time, out of whack either because of measurements in land or other things, or market values and so on. I think there has to be probably a bit of give and take here. I would not want to see a monstrous fee here whereby somebody would be restricted from appealing an assessment on a particular piece of property.

Again, I have seen cases where there have been back-lot land that was absolutely useless for development; there was no access to this particular property. Again, the assessment that was done was extremely high and yet the land that was there could not be used because it turned out to be that of a back-lot development.

I look forward to, later on in third reading, asking some questions and certainly hopefully receiving some answers from the minister, especially as it relates to fees that are going to be charged and so on.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. A. REID: Some of the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Rather than belabour it this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I will provide the information in committee for the hon. member, the things that he asked for. I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 23)

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, Order 19, Bill No. 39, An Act Respecting Security Interests In Personal Property.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Security Interests In Personal Property". (Bill No. 39)

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few notes on second reading of Bill No. 39.

This act is a new act representing security interests in personal property. Certainly this bill will modernize - I need to say a few things on this because it is a whole new registry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. McLEAN: Two minutes, no problem.

This bill will modernize the system for registration of personal property interests. The bill will create a whole new registry to be known as the Personal Property Registry. This will provide a single electronic registry for all security and personal property such as chattel mortgages and liens on cars, in addition to the registration of tangible personal property, personal assets. In this new registry, non-tangible assets such as fishing licenses and mining rights will also be included.

This will provide individuals and small businesses with a greater range of assets when they seek financing from banks, trust companies and credit unions. On-line registration will also shorten the process involved in obtaining loans. Personal property is currently documented on three different registries, often making it difficult and confusing for clients to determine exactly what has been registered. Our new registry will enable users to make personal property registrations in one registry, electronically, on-line, from anywhere in the Province.

The bill will improve our ability to do business in the Province, and the main users of this service - banks, trust companies, credit unions, car dealers, lawyers, et cetera - are eager to see the new system in place.

There is a fair amount of work to be done but government intends to have the new system in place before the end of 1999. This new bill will replace the assignment of book debt (inaudible), the Conditional Sales Act, the Bill of Sales Act, of which some parts of those acts were adopted in the 1800s.

In an attempt to harmonize our legislation with other provincial counterparts in the Atlantic Provinces, the bill has been drafted to be consistent with legislation in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and PEI. As a result, we will create a common registry regulatory environment, making it easier to do business in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, that is not too hard to do, to confuse you.

Mr. Speaker, I have gone through Bill 39, An Act Respecting Security Interests In Personal Property, and I have highlighted a number of sections here that I want to speak to the minister about. I don't know if it is necessary to get into it today. There are quite a number of points I want to make, or questions to be asked. I will identify them in committee, when I get up. There is no need to get into it now, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few comments with respect to what the minister said. He said that this is a new act that is going to modernize the registry and put a system in place with respect to registering personal property in the Province, with respect to liens and what have you. I would think that is what it is about, from what I have read of the bill. It is going to be an electronic registry, of course, which is going to be much more efficient for the people in the Province, in remote areas and what have you.

Now, as the minister stated, there are three different registries that have to be utilized and where these documents are recorded, and this will make it much simpler. Of course, if that is the case it should also be cheaper, I say to the minister. These are some of the things I would look at.

He talked about the small businesses having an advantage here, with respect to this new system, and he is hoping to have this system in place by the end of 1999. According to the amount of money that the government is spending on computers and computers systems in the various departments, which I always bring up to the Minister of Finance when we are in committee doing the budget, I don't know how much more it is going to cost next year with respect to implementing this and putting the proper hardware and software in place for this new system, but I expect the minister will have some figures on that. I expect him also, when he talks about the cost of implementing the system, to tell us how much money he is going to save the taxpayers and small businesses in the Province. Maybe that is something that should be addressed, Mr. Speaker.

I am just going to let that go for now, take my seat, and bring up some of these concerns that I have with respect to this bill, because it is quite a long bill. There are eighty-six clauses in this bill. It is not a minor piece of legislation by any stretch of the imagination. Some ministers were up the other day talking about a simple piece of legislation. I don't think any legislation going through the House is simple, and this certainly is not.

I will have further questions and further debate at committee stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say a few words on Bill 39, An Act Respecting Security Interests In Personal Property.

This is an important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, because it changes the whole regime in this Province for, I guess, the setting of collateral in personal property, vehicles, trucks, equipment, TV sets, furniture, book debts, all sorts of things that can be secured to finance business activity or to finance consumer purchases, to finance the sale of goods. It is very important that we have an efficient system in place in order to allow the maximum amount of trade to go on and to promote business efficiency. It is helpful to everyone in the community to have an efficient system of that, and I think that the adoption of a personal security property act is a good thing. Whether this one meets all those needs, I suppose, remains open to doubt. It has not been before this House long enough to get proper study of such a detailed piece of legislation. Perhaps it will be like the Judgement Enforcement Act, we will be coming in a year's time with a whole series of thirty, forty or fifty amendments to fix up the things that were not thought of properly or thought of that need to be adjusted because of the realities of trying to implement a system.

With that caveat, Mr. Speaker, I think it is good to see that we are modernizing our system. I hope that this first take is a good one, despite the fact that we will have a very, very short period of time in committee to deal with this under pressure of members wanting to get home for Christmas, to get back to their districts and back to their families. This legislation will be looked at -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I cannot hear myself think, let alone speak, so I am having difficulty going on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I know that this legislation is complicated. It is not really going to get proper clause-by-clause study because there is not enough time. A committee should have been dealing with this for some months. It has been on the go a long time. The department has been having sessions to teach lawyers about it and to teach other people about it. There is no reason why this should not have been before a committee for several months now, for consideration on a clause-by-clause basis so we do not have to go through this exercise in the dying days of the Legislature before Christmas, in committee hearings where nobody really wants to do much other than get the matter out of this House. It is a piece of legislation that is long overdue. I hope it is a good piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands. If the hon. the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are not in any rush to get it done. We will just close second reading and in committee stage we will certainly deal with the thing clause-by-clause.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 26.

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

The Chair has not put the motion yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Security Interests In Personal Property," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 39).

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

MR. FUREY: Order No. 26, Bill 55, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 26.

Motion, second reading of a bill "An Act To Revise The Law With Respect To Quarry Materials". (Bill No. 55).

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

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can give a more detailed explanation tomorrow, or whenever we get into clause by clause. Essentially, what we are doing here is this. This new act gives a clearer definition of what quarry materials are versus dimension stone. If you look at the body of the act you will see that dimension stone is being moved from a quarry material into a mineral itself, and it will be shifted into the Mineral Act.

There is a difference with Labrador, which I will explain tomorrow, and the difference with Labrador, why we are not moving Labrador into the Mineral Act at this time. It is pending the Aboriginal land claim negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also increases significantly the fines for people who are tearing up the lands. In the past we found that the fines are so low that they actually use it as a cost of business. We are putting substantial fines in place. I can get into more details tomorrow with respect to the act.

Essentially, what it is is a new act. It gives clearer definition to quarry materials, and it enhances the courts' ability to put higher fines in place for offenses.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am just going to go for about thirty minutes here to give it a brief rebuttal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thirty minutes, Mr. Speaker.

I am planning to ask a few specific questions on clause by clause tomorrow. It is a clear description of quarry and mineral resources. Also, I am very interested to hear what the minister has to say with respect to Labrador, dimension stone, and those things that could have implications for this particular bill.

There is one thing that I will say right off the top. The increase with fines and so on - which may have been abused up to this time, as the minister has said -, I do not see any problem with that whatsoever, but I will be looking more closely at what the minister has to say with respects to Labrador, and the description between the quarry and minerals. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to discussing in clause by clause, and especially Santa Claus for the Member for Cape St. Francis.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law With Respect To Quarry Materials," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 55)

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there are still some bills which we have to do but it has been too strenuous an afternoon to call any more bills. There are only a couple of minutes left, so I think I will move adjournment.

Before I do that, I would suggest that tomorrow members be ready to deal with Order Nos. 23, 24 and 25. Then we will be going to the bills which we gave first reading of today, which were Bills 51, 45, 49, 52, 54 and 56. The Opposition House Leader and I will discuss it later on in the evening to see what we (inaudible).

I move that the House would adjourn until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.

*********************************************************************