May 4, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 16


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery, Mr. Brian Warr from Springdale. Mr. Warr is the father of one of our Pages, Kara Warr.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova; the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; and the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

The Chair recognizes the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, Easter week is dedicated to Minor Hockey Tournaments across the Province. Congratulations are certainly in order for the Bishop's Falls Pee Wee and Atom Division teams on winning medals in their respective tournaments.

Bishop's Falls hosted the Pee Wee Division tournament and the host team played the round robin undefeated. In a very evenly matched championship game, Trinity Placentia won the game by a score of 5 to 4, with Bishop's Falls winning the silver medal.

In the Atom tournament in St. Barbe, the Bishop's Falls team played the round robin undefeated and were matched against Stephenville in the championship game. At the end of regulation time the score was tied 2 to 2. It was during the second overtime period when Bruce Power of Bishop's Falls scored the sudden death goal. Needless to say, it was an exciting time for these young girls and boys.

Mr. Speaker, these tournaments build team spirit and self-confidence. I ask all members in this House to join me in congratulating the Bishop's Falls Atom and Pee Wee teams on winning gold and silver medals respectively.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to extend congratulations to the Air Rifle Team of Royal Canadian Sea Corps 237 Truxtun of Lawn who struck gold while the team competed at the Canadian Cadet Provincial Marksmanship Championship recently.

Truxtun's team will now compete against the best marksmen in Canada as they represent Newfoundland and Labrador at the National Cadet Air Rifle Championship in Regina, Saskatchewan, May 6 to May 13.

Ninety cadet corps and squadrons from around the Province compete at the regional level each year with winners, and high-scoring wildcard teams, advancing to the provincial level. This year fifteen teams, consisting of seventy-five competitors, participated at the provincial level representing difference regions of our Province.

Able Cadet Jonathan Strang of 237 Truxtun won two additional medals. Jonathan won gold in the top scoring junior competition and silver for placing second overall with a score of 386 out of a possible 400. Chief Petty Officer First Class Ashley Tarrant, a past cadet of 237 Truxtun, topped the scoring, placing first overall with a score of 387 out of a possible 400, earning her a spot on the Newfoundland and Labrador composite team.

The 237 Truxtun's five-member team consists of: Chief Petty Officer First Class Jennifer Drake; Chief Petty Officer Second Class Hilary Edwards; Petty Officer First Class Justin Power; Able Cadet Jonathan Strang, and Ordinary Cadet Shelby Jarvis, all students of Holy Name of Mary Academy in Lawn. The team brought home the gold medal with a score of 1,526 out of a possible 1,600 setting. They set a record for the highest score ever registered at the provincial competition.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating these young people, and their leaders, on this remarkable accomplishment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring congratulations to the Glovertown Academy Gymnastics Club. Last weekend, the 2006 Atlantic Gymnastics Championships were held in Mount Pearl. Glovertown's Melissa Hunter won a silver medal, finishing a third of a point behind the gold medalist in the ladies' open provincial level 1 category.

Hunter's silver medal performance was the best of the four members of the Glovertown club competing at the Atlantics; however, the remaining three athletes also did an admirable job. Brittany Murphy, in the same division as Hunter, finished sixth overall. Ryan Gordon won a bronze in the boys' thirteen-and-up level 3 competition, and Shane Frost finished just behind Gordon, coming in fourth. The overall result for the team was great, and it is a tremendous experience for them to build on for future competitions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all hon. members join with me today in congratulating these four individuals for their wonderful accomplishments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Phyllis O'Brien of L'Anse au Loup who retired from her position as a librarian of the Labrador South Public Library Board on March 31, after twenty years on the job.

Approximately seventy-five people showed up at the Lawrence D. O'Brien Town Centre to show their gratitude to Ms O'Brien's work and involvement in the community, and to wish her the best for what they called her well-deserved retirement. Ms O'Brien has seen many children grow into adults over the years in the Labrador Straits region, and she has been pivotal in guiding them with their literary needs.

Mr Speaker, many tokens of appreciation were presented to her from the community but also from the Provincial Information and Library Resources Board and the Labrador South Public Library Board.

I would like to ask my colleagues today to join me in congratulating Phyllis O'Brien on her retirement and to wish her success and happiness in the years ahead.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Daisy Dawe, a Level I student at Ascension Collegiate, who won the regional Dalton Assembly Fourth Degree Knights of Columbus Public Speaking Competition and will participate in the provincial finals in public speaking in Gander.

Daisy took first place in the Dalton Assembly Fourth Degree regional competition held recently at St. Francis School in Harbour Grace. Her topic was, "Gambling...the fallout and the solutions". Daisy has been involved in many public speaking competitions throughout high school.

Mr. Speaker, the Knights of Columbus are known for their involvement with our youth through their pubic speaking competitions. Public speaking is a great forum for our youth to voice their thoughts and concerns on particular subjects, and a great way to involve and inform our communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Daisy Dawe, regional winner of the Dalton Assembly Fourth Degree competition and wish her all the best in the provincials.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, last night we heard panellists at a forum on rural Newfoundland and Labrador at the university on the West Coast, and one of those panellists stated that this government only seems to be interested in non-renewable resources, mainly oil and gas.

I ask the Premier: Why are you prepared to take up the fight with the oil companies, and take the oil companies on, but you sit idly by and watch FPI gut - gut - rural communities in this Province? Why don't you have the same interest in the fishery, and the people who work therein?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as Premier of this Province, together with our Cabinet and our caucus and our government, we will take up any battle with anyone, anytime, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What I am particularly interested in is a quote that came from the former minister responsible for rural development, the Member for Grand Bank, who made a statement in the House, and I am going to read that statement to you, which was their attitude on the future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador: I suppose from my perspective I recognize that as a Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and previously the minister of development and rural renewal, and as much as we want to attach investment to rural Newfoundland, as much as we want to diversify the economy, it is not easy to do. These are her words, Mr. Speaker. It is just not easy to attract those capital dollars to rural Newfoundland. We can look to urban centres, we can look to places like Gander, we can look at Corner Brook, we can look at Mount Pearl, we can look at Grand Falls-Windsor, because it is much easier to interest companies in going to these parts of the Province. These are her words, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: But if you are looking at Lord's Cove - I will just be about twenty seconds, Mr. Speaker - if you are look at Lamaline on the Burin Peninsula, down where she comes from, if you are looking at Point May, they are not going to go there, Mr. Speaker - this minister - they are not near any type of infrastructure. The numbers of people that they need in terms of starting up a business are not there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is what she said, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask all members if they would respect the general time limits we have of sixty seconds in their responses.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, your talk is cheap, but we have not seen any action on behalf of you or this government with regard to fishing issues in this Province.

My next question is this. We all know that FPI has harvested fish since Christmas. What I want to know, with all of its groundfish plants closed in this Province, where has this fish been processed?

Another question: Is FPI fishing today and where is that fish going to be processed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know when they found time last night to watch the panel. They were all huddled up out somewhere on Elizabeth Avenue or Kenmount Road or somewhere trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. I would like to know what his position is now a two-tier minimum wage? That would be an interesting question that I would ask if I was over there, I can tell you right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Just so, Mr. Speaker, I get an opportunity to finish with the words of the Member for Grand Bank, the person who was going to leave rural Newfoundland and come to St. John's, the urban centre, where everything is happening. Let me finish what she had to say. The numbers of people they need in terms of starting up a business are not there. That is what she is saying about rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, this person, former minister, went on to say: But more importantly - and listen to what she said. More importantly, the people do not have the skills that are going to be required. The people in rural Newfoundland, she -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, you have not answered a question about the fishery in this House of Assembly in the past three years. That is what I say to the minister, because you do not know anything about it and you have even less interest in it.

Mr. Speaker, we hear talk from members opposite about an early retirement package but not one word of it in their Budget, not one word of it in their Budget this year. Earlier this week, the federal government brought down its Budget, not one mention of an early retirement package for Atlantic Canada or Newfoundland and Labrador, but there was $2 billion in that federal Budget for Western farmers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I ask the Premier: Are you and your federal counterparts or Prime Minister Harper -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair asks the Leader of the Opposition to pose his question in about ten seconds.

MR. REID: I ask the Premier: Are you and Stephen Harper serious about early retirement or are you just paying lip service, too, until there is no one left in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, how can the hon. gentleman opposite get up and talk out of both sides of his mouth? I went back, actually, and looked at his record while he was Fisheries Minister to see if there is anything we could find out about him or anything. We could not find out anything because he did nothing when he was over there. He did absolutely nothing!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: But he made some nice statements. He made a statement in Hansard that says the company was established, with reference to FPI, in 1983. It worked well. They had to close a couple of plants when they first got themselves established because they did not think it would be profitable to keep all of them. He goes on to say: We all agree there is a party, as an all-party committee, that he was Chair of, that we could not put in legislation that you could lay off people. So, he is asking us to put it in legislation. He would not do it himself.

The Member for Bellevue just walked in. What did we do for your community? We bought fish quotas and we saved your community. That is what we did!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We just saw a prime example of what this individual has been doing for the last two years. He attacks the person but he never addresses the issue.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated last week in this House of Assembly that you have to pick your battles with Ottawa. I ask the Premier one simple question: Is this battle, the battle of early retirement, worth one that you should enter with the federal government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, some of the money that we have gotten, some of the money that we have put together turning around this bankrupt situation which that government had in place for us, some of that Atlantic Accord money, the $2 billion, we have allocated at least $30 million of that and we stepped up and we put our money where our mouth was a long, long time ago. We have stood behind it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The former Minister of Fisheries stated his position on that. The current Minister of Fisheries stated his position on that. We stated our position on that. We put it in writing to the Prime Minister. We have done everything we can and that is a battle we will fight with Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, he put his money up for the Stephenville mill knowing full well that he would never -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes that Question Period is very volatile but we ask members to permit each other to be heard.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, he put his money up for the Stephenville mill knowing full well that he would not have to spend it. He is saying he has $30 million for early retirement. He knows he is not going to have to spend that either.

Mr. Speaker, today we are still getting calls from residents of the Northern Peninsula where two plants, namely Black Duck Cove and Anchor Point, are still closed while fish is being trucked off the Northern Peninsula because this minister will not adhere to a policy that has been in the Department of Fisheries for years, that being fish harvested in the Gulf must be processed on the Northern Peninsula and Charlottetown.

I ask the minister, you said you were looking into it yesterday: Have you had further discussions with your officials and when will you bring that policy back?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, in terms of when and if we may bring the policy back, I will make the general public aware of that when the decision is taken.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot have the Leader of the Opposition getting up with a crumb of an idea and making that into something that is not a reality. First of all, Mr. Speaker, one of the operators, the operator in Anchor Point, has not even applied and submitted their application fee to have their processing licence renewed yet. What am I supposed to do about that, Mr. Speaker, pick up the phone and send him out an application and say, fill it out and send it in?

In terms of the other operator, Mr. Speaker, in Black Duck Cove, the Leader of the Opposition knows there is an negotiation. There is a labour dispute on up in that plant right now between the employees and the operator. So, whether we made a policy change or not, today, it would have no effect on what is happening in those two communities, absolutely none. The hon. gentleman knows it, but that is not good politics for him to admit it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is missing the point. The minister is missing the point. I asked him to bring back the policy saying that shrimp from the Gulf should not leave the Northern Peninsula, and if it wasn't leaving the Northern Peninsula those two plants would be open today.

My final question is simple and straightforward: Has FPI been charged yet?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have never seen - Jim, you can run in my seat! I will resign and let Jim here!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I have never seen -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) that to mean I am not going to run against you. I mean, the Opposition needs a leader, Mr. Speaker. I have never seen such incompetence in my thirty years in this place.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that if we change the 4R policy tomorrow, FPI is operating at capacity in Port au Choix. The operator in Anchor Point has not applied to have his licence renewed. The operator in Black Duck Cove is in a labour dispute, so nothing will change with the policy being reinstated in terms of those communities. Do I have to say it again? Duh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people on the Northern Peninsula know what the truth is. Again, you avoid answering the question. The question was simple, and I will say it as simply as I can: Has FPI been charged yet?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the third time this week the hon. gentleman asked a similar question. He can ask it every single day. When the process is completed and a decision is made the whole world will know, including the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, you can take your spite out on me, I don't mind, but the one thing you cannot do is get rid of me like you did Fabian Manning and Beth Marshall. So, you can take your spite out on me all you want. Remember, you were the one who campaigned on having a campaign for rural Newfoundland, and guess what it was? Resettlement. That is exactly what it was.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to an interview this morning with a spokesperson from Cooke Aquaculture who said that, while the company is interested in the fish plant in Fortune, it is not committed to Fortune. She said that, for the company to seriously consider utilizing the fish plant in Fortune, it has been made clear to the government that a quota will be necessary.

I ask the Deputy Premier: Is this government prepared to enforce the FPI Act and force FPI to provide the quota traditionally processed in Fortune to Cooke Aquaculture so the people who rely on the fish plant in Fortune can return to work?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I heard the interview this morning as well. There was nothing new in the interview that people do not know in terms of the interests of Cooke Aquaculture in Fortune.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ‘backupable'?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, it is ‘backupable'. There is nothing new in it.

I say to Jim, you can talk this guy into resigning. He has done it before, for leaders, Mr. Speaker. There is a seat for you, if you want it, Jim. That is ‘backupable', Jim. He has done it before!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, to get back to the serious question -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask all hon. members to direct their questions directly through the Speaker. We should avoid references to guests who are in the galleries, the Speaker's gallery or other galleries we might have.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to complete his answer.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I think the nub of the hon. member's question was, shouldn't we be using the FPI Act to make sure that fish quota traditionally processed in Fortune stays there?

Well, first of all, with respect, and I am sure the hon. Member for Grand Bank knows this, there is nothing in the FPI Act that allows the Province to do anything in terms of quota, because the Province does not control quota. Quota is controlled by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Government of Canada.

Now, what I have done, when FPI threw the idea of Cooke and quota on the table some weeks ago, I proposed that we would work out a deal for that to go to Fortune; but, of course, I no sooner had that out of my mouth than people elsewhere started to pound me on the head, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, during the interview it was made clear also that the company is looking at other sites, and possibly even building a plant to suit their aquaculture needs.

I ask the Deputy Premier: What is this government prepared to do today to ensure that Cooke Aquaculture can set up business quickly in Fortune?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have made it clear to Cooke that we are prepared to - we are in negotiations with them, to entice them into Newfoundland and Labrador. We are prepared to facilitate a deal that would include Fortune with them; however, Mr. Speaker, what we cannot do is to force the Government of Canada, or FPI, under present circumstances, to turn over a quota.

I do not have the authority to do that. The Government of Newfoundland does not have the authority to do that. The Legislature does not have the authority to do that.

I have also indicated, and I think I indicated in the House yesterday, we are looking around Atlantic Canada, particularly in waters adjacent to Newfoundland, to see if it is possible to do something similar to what we did in Arnold's Cove. In other words, buy some quota from somebody who may have some quota for sale, and that may be a lever that we could use in favour of Fortune, in favour of Harbour Breton, in favour of other areas. It is good public policy to do that, Mr. Speaker. We are committed to doing it, and if we can find quota we would certainly be prepared to negotiate the acquisition of such.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Deputy Premier has said about the FPI Act, the fact of the matter is that as long as you have a piece of legislation that governs a company you do have control; you do have control over where those quotas go. You can tell FPI to keep the quota that is traditionally processed in Fortune in Fortune. You can do that. It is in the act. That is why we are asking you to hold the company accountable.

Mr. Speaker, the situation is serious on the Burin Peninsula. While families are leaving daily in search of employment, there are those who are not able to relocate. I ask the Deputy Premier: What plan does the government have to help those individuals, many of whom have no income and are embarrassed because they have to turn to social assistance for help?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to deal with the questions of the hon member in a forthright, honest way when she gets on with something that is half sensible; but, Mr. Speaker, saying there is authority in the FPI Act for the Government of Newfoundland to direct FPI to land the traditional amount of fish that it processed at Fortune to somebody else to operate Fortune is beyond our jurisdiction. The hon. member knows that. It is not something we can do. We do not have the authority to do it. It is not in the act. The hon. member knows that. If she is going to tell her constituents, Mr. Speaker -

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member. I did not try to yell her down while she was asking her question. I listened to her.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is going to try to fib to her constituents on the FPI Act, I will have to make them aware of the real fact of the matter. It is not there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, you do not have to call me to order. If fib is unparliamentary, I will withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I will ask my question again, which the Deputy Premier just ignored. That was, the problem on the Burin Peninsula is serious. While families are leaving daily in search of employment, there are those who are not able to relocate.

I ask you again, Deputy Premier: What plan does the government have to help those individuals, many of whom have no income and are embarrassed because they have to turn to social assistance for help?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we are putting our best foot forward on covering every possibility, following up on every angle in an effort to attract an industry to the Burin Peninsula. On top of that, various departments - I know INTRD have; I know I have personally - have met with representatives of various departments in the Government of Canada in terms of extending EI programs, doing other things on the Burin Peninsula to help ease the burden in the medium term and short term.

As well, as was raised in the House today and many times previously, we are still in negotiations with the Government of Canada on a Worker Adjustment Program. Mr. Speaker, every idea that has come to us or that we can think of, we are pursuing in an effort to ease the burden, as much as humanly possible, not totally, but as much as humanly possible, that the people on the Burin Peninsula are facing.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the leadership of FFAW will be presenting a proposal in Marystown this week from FPI, a proposal that does not include Fortune. I ask the Premier: Is this acceptable to you and your government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That question, Mr. Speaker, is almost as bad as the question on using the FPI Act to do things that we do not have the constitutional authority to do. We are not going to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: What is wrong with old ‘backupable' again now, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I was trying to respond to the question from his colleague, from the hon. member. We are, obviously, not going to attempt even to interfere in what a union brings to its membership or puts in front of its membership for their comment on. I mean, how in God's name would we try to do that?

In terms of Fortune, I mean FPI made it clear weeks and weeks ago that they had no future plan for Fortune. Fortune knows that. The leadership of Fortune knows that. The union leadership in Fortune knows that. So, how you would say to the union do not bring something to Marystown before your membership because there is nothing there for Fortune. I mean, that is just as silly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the issue of quotas, I asked the Premier a simple question: Are you considering buying a quota from John Risley in FPI?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we would consider, and we think it is good public policy to consider, buying quota if there is quota available from whatever source.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard. We watched a company gut Harbour Breton. We watched a company gut Fortune and leave it high and dry, and now the minister is suggesting that we go to John Risley and the Mr. Armoyan's, the people who are gutting rural Newfoundland and Labrador and, actually, make these fellas have more money in their pockets by buying a quota off them and giving it back to the people in Fortune who should own that quota. Is that what you are saying?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, this coming from the hon. gentleman who almost everyday gets up and beats his chest about somebody ranting and raving in the House. What a despicable piece of work by the Leader of the Opposition. I never said no such thing. What I said was a general policy statement of this government. Ask his colleague from Bellevue. Was it the right thing to do to spend $3.5 million of public money -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: No, he would not stand up for it.

Was it the right thing to do to buy from whom, Mr. Speaker, to buy that quota from whom? National Sea, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TAYLOR: Northern Cod.

MR. RIDEOUT: Northern Cod, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that Arnold's Cove would have a future. If we can find quota that is out there that is available, as a matter of public policy. That is not new. We have said this for ages, that we would entertain trying to do a deal to buy it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. For the past seven -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I ask members for their co-operation.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

For the past seven years FPI's competitors have been trying to get control of the company so they could pursue their own plans, break it up or sell it for parts and acquire the juicy bits for themselves. It seems, Mr. Speaker, that the only role this government is playing is helping FPI sell off and get rid of the parts it does not want. Why is it that this government does not see the value of FPI as a flagship fishing company with over $800 million in annual sales that under the right management and control could act in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador and provide stability in the fishing sector?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we have made the statement before, I made the statement in this hon. House that this government is not in the business of getting into the fishing industry. It is just not going to happen. It does not make good sense. It is not the right thing to do.

With regard to allowing FPI to do something to break up assets, that is not what we are all about. We are trying to manage our way through this to make sure that the company is sound, that the jobs are kept and that the communities are kept alive. Now there is a certain reality out there which we all know that we are dealing with, it's the Chinese labour market, it's the dollar, it's the lack of resource. You know that better than anybody, you were on the all-party committee. You have been around the fishing industry for a long, long time. You know the reality of what is happening out there. We are doing our very best to manage ourselves through a very, very difficult situation. All hon. members in this House know how complex the fishery is and for you to tell me that I know nothing about the fishery, well that is your opinion, sir, but I happen to think that maybe I do know something about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: When it comes to allowing George Armoyan or John Risley or anybody else in that company to take these assets and get rid of them and spend, and according to the Leader of the Opposition, make money off it and buy quotas so we can put money into the hands of people like John Risley, well what we are trying to do is repatriate these quotas and keep these quotas in Newfoundland and Labrador so that John Risley or George Armoyan does not sell them off to some outsider outside of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what it is all about. You don't even understand that!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, what I would like to see repatriated is FPI that was created by a Tory government in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1984.

Mr. Speaker, this government wants equity in the offshore oil and gas, and I support this, Mr. Speaker, but the whole of FPI and all the quotas that we are talking about could be acquired for a fraction of the cost of offshore oil equity.

Mr. Speaker, this government put $1.9 billion into the teachers' pension fund a few weeks ago, why isn't it prepared to spend one tenth of that to put this company under the right kind of control that could help stabilize and diversify rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Do I understand the hon. member to be saying we should take the money back out of the pension funds and use some of it to go and buy FPI? Is that what he is alleging, saying, taking one-tenth of it out? So, we will take $190 million out of the $1.9 billion and buy FPI out of it? Is that what you are suggesting?

I do not know what the teachers might think about that, or the people who are getting the pension funds stabilized.

The other thing is, how cheap do you think FPI is? Do you just do a multiple of multiplying the number of shares by the amount that they are worth on the public market? Because that is not the case.

I have seen what you have done with regard to trying to value Hydro. You were way off on that one, too, so you might want to get your figures straight before you start talking about buying companies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Three months ago, the government announced that Bill Barry had agreed to operate the Harbour Breton plant. Today there is an impasse related to the environmental cleanup, thus preventing Mr. Barry from moving in and starting the refurbishing of the plant to begin operation.

I ask the minister: Why can't the government move in, clean up the site, and charge back the cost to FPI so that this plant can begin operation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: We could do that, Mr. Speaker. That is a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Am I allowed to answer their colleague's question, Mr. Speaker?

We could do that. We have given consideration to that. As a matter of fact, we have said to FPI: You follow through on your commitment that you gave to Harbour Breton a year or so ago on 3O redfish and the Province will assume the liability for the environmental cleanup.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, because of the payout of severance, these workers and not eligible in Harbour Breton for any projects until 2007. There is real concern and frustration in the community, and time is of the essence.

I ask the minister: What is the time frame for a resolution to the problem, and when can the people who look to this plant for a future expect to return to work?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with ‘Jarge' from Crinkle Cove?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace and others if we would appreciate the fact that a question has been asked and, in all due respect for the House, we need to give the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture an opportunity to reply.

The Chair recognizes the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I hate to do this to my friend and colleague from Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune but I am going to have to ask him to repeat the question. It is that long ago since it was asked, I do not think I have the essence of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period had expired.

I do believe the question should be held over until tomorrow.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today again to present a petition from the people of the North Shore in the Bay of Islands concerning the dump site on the North Shore, which is under the control of the City of Corner Brook.

This petition today is from the residents of the Town of Irishtown-Summerside. This is one of the petitions that I have that I will be presenting, of over 1,000 names, asking that the dump site be closed down, which it is supposed to be in two years' time, instead of having the life of the dump extended another twenty or thirty years.

I wrote, on behalf of the councils on the North Shore of the Bay of Islands, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the Minister of Environment and Conservation, concerning this. I am not sure if they got back to the councils or myself. They have not gotten back to myself; I am not sure if they got back to the councils, to meet with them.

This is a major concern for the residents on the North Shore, Mr. Speaker. As you drive over it, especially this time of the year, there are actually deal gulls, on a regular basis, on the side of the road. The garbage is all throughout the ditches, all throughout from Ballam Bridge right up to the dump site. The traffic is congested this time of year, as most times, with the heavy trucks coming up a very steep hill, and the slow traffic going in and out is a major concern.

The residents did put up with this for a number of years, with the understanding that the dump site will be closed when the life of the dump is over, which is in two years' time. There was a $130,000 study done recommending a regional disposal site which everybody endorsed, but for some reason now, the City of Corner Brook, without consultation, is trying to extend the life of the dump site in the area. What the mayors and the people in this petition are asking is that the dump site be closed down, or at least give them the courtesy of sitting down and having a meeting with all the councils involved. If this has to be done, which all the residents and myself feel it should not be done, let's do it in such a manner that everybody is included in the program itself. If you are just going to take it and steamroll it and say, here is what we are going to do - the councils on the north shore and the council in Massey Drive were at the meeting, and some members from the Mount Moriah council were also there, and they don't feel they are being included in this process. They don't feel that the decision made is the proper decision.

I spoke to the Minister of Municipal Affairs who informed me that there has been no such proposal presented yet. I know the hon. gentleman is speaking very honestly on that, but I am very confident there will be one coming to keep the dump site open, an extension of the dump site. What I am asking both ministers to do, in the very near future - because if you let it go and go and it gets too far along in the process people will feel isolated, they will feel they are not part of the process, and then any decision that is made, whatsoever, will not be inclusive of all -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. JOYCE: Just leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, hon. House Leader, for leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Always? Sometimes.

I will be back presenting several other petitions, so I call upon the two ministers to, as soon as possible, fit in your schedules - this is an urgent matter for the residents on the north shore - to come out. It will be a very cordial meeting, but we have to sit down with these councils to make sure they are inclusive in finding a suitable solution to this problem.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Grand Le Pierre in the District of Bellevue.

The prayer of the petition is:

WHEREAS the Eastern School Board plans to close St. Thomas School in Grand Le Pierre June 2006; and

WHEREAS a school is a vital part of a community; and

WHEREAS parents in the community have decided not to accept the school closure planned by the Board;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to do whatever possible to save St. Thomas School in Grand Le Pierre.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Grand Le Pierre, I think every resident within the Community of Grand le Pierre, have signed this petition. Now, the petition itself was not in the right prayer of the House of Assembly, but it was a prayer that was prepared by the people within the community and, of course, it was revised and put in proper format.

Mr. Speaker, we see here - one leading educator once said that the decision-making process in education should be as close to the learners as possible. Dr. Malcolm Knowles is a renown educator. He always indicated that education is so important that the decision-making process should be as close to the learners as possible.

What we see with the Eastern School Board and the whole process that this Eastern School Board went through was just disgraceful. The whole process was this one. Community groups and people had to go before a public forum and do a presentation, a ten-minute presentation in a community forum. Do you know where the people from Grand Le Pierre had to go to do their presentation? They had to go to Rushoon. Expensive costs to the residents of these communities -

AN HON. MEMBER: How far is that?

MR. BARRETT: As a matter of fact, they had to go in a snowstorm to Rushoon and they also had to go to Marystown to do their presentations.

Out of the fifteen people on the school board, do you know how many of those school board members have ever been into Grand Le Pierre? Four. They don't even know where the community exists. They passed it on the way to the Burin Peninsula, but it is a fair distance -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: I have to say, a couple of the school board members did take the time to go down and have a look at the community.

We went to these school boards meetings - as a matter of fact, I left St. John's, left this House of Assembly one evening at 5:30 and drove three-and-a-half hours to Rushoon to do a ten-minute presentation and present the case for the people in Grand Le Pierre and English Harbour East of why their schools should not close.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. BARRETT: By leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted to make some concluding comments.

MR. BARRETT: Actually, a three-and-a-half hour drive out and back. I got ten minutes to do a presentation and when the ten minutes were up, an alarm clock went off saying that was it. There was no interchange of people whatsoever. There was no discussion with the board whatsoever. Community groups went and did their presentations. There was no discussion with people within the community. No sitting down with the people within the community and discussing their school. It is a disgraceful process by a school board that is St. John's based, on Water Street in St. John's; nobody from this area on the school board whatsoever. The whole District of Bellevue does not have a representative on the school board, and this school board is making decisions. Now, we made a presentation to the Minister of Education. I have to give her credit. We made a presentation on Monday to the Minister of Education and she has agreed to write the school board. Hopefully, the school board will listen to the Minister of Education and overturn the decision of this board.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition on behalf of the people in the District of Grand Bank and, particularly, those people who worked, actually, at the fish plant in Fortune and who hope to return there again, but of course it depends on a lot of things. I think, from what we heard today in Question Period, there is no certainty around any of them.

One of the things that they would like to see, of course, is to see the quota that was traditionally processed at the plant in Fortune, to be continued to be processed at the plant in Fortune, no matter who the operator happens to be. Of course, for that to happen, it is going to require some action by the government, I would think, to make sure that quota, that was traditionally processed there, remains there for the benefit of the people who have given so much and so much time to the industry - and to FPI, in particular, in this case - to make sure that company was a viable company. While FPI says it is having difficulty in the groundfish industry, that is not to say that it is not making money. I think we have asked time and time again that FPI have a social conscience, like used to exist with that company, and recognize that there are going to be bumps in any company in some of the subsidiaries and why they would look at cross-subsidization, as happened in the past, to ensure that fish plants could continue to operate in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

The fishery has been the mainstay of this Province. It will continue to be the mainstay of this Province because it is a renewable resource. As much as we want to tout the oil and gas industry, and yes, it is good for the Province and you are benefitting now from increased wealth as a result of that, but, at the end of the day, oil and gas are not renewable resources. The fishery is.

I, again, ask this government to not lose sight of the importance of the fishery, particularly to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and to do what the people of Fortune and surrounding communities are asking, and that is to make sure that there is a quota that remains in Fortune to be processed at the fish plant in Fortune, because it is only with a quota, which we understand now that Cooke Aquaculture will be able to do anything in under two years. I would expect that the same would apply to the Barry Group of Companies or to the Penney Group of Companies or whomever assumes ownership of those assets.

The problem we are having today, Mr. Speaker, is that we have so many people who really do not know what the future holds for them. They are moving away. I heard a young man this morning, Mr. Marks, Mr. Ralph Marks from Fortune, who did an interview on CBC Radio this morning, and he was talking about, he has to go off to P.E.I. I think they are going to get paid something like $9 an hour.

The reality of it is that they have to move their families, they have to leave, so here is another young family moving out of Fortune. The more families that move, the more we are going to end up with an aging population. In a lot of cases, these young families have been caring for their parents, or making sure their parents are okay, and what is going to happen when they leave and there is no one out there to care -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Time to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, of course, what we are going to end up facing is, we are going to have elderly people there, parents of children who have had to leave, and no one to care for them. So, where are they going to end up? They are going to end up in the various senior homes somewhere on the Burin Peninsula or elsewhere, at a cost to the government.

The reality of it is that if the government would acknowledge that what is happening here is not good for the Province, is not good for the provincial Treasury, is going to end up costing the government money, with some acknowledgement that an infusion of money into rural Newfoundland and Labrador at a time when they are having difficulty will pay off in the long run, one way of doing that is to ensure that the quota that is traditionally processed in Fortune remains in Fortune.

That is, again, what the people who have signed this petition are asking. Each and every one of them are looking to the government to do its part and act responsibly, and ensure that a quota remains to be processed at the fish plant in Fortune.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to present a petition on behalf of the citizens, residents, students and teachers of the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou and Diamond Cove. This is yet another petition that I received from those communities.

St. Michael's Elementary School, which deals with K-6 children in those communities, in those areas, is possibly going to be closing if the Western School Board deems it necessary and makes that particular motion at a June meeting that they are due to have. There is going to be a meeting of the community at Rose Blanche on May 18.

I present this petition, of course, on behalf of the students and the parents, because they do not want St. Michael's to close. We have requested information from the Director of Education. We feel that all the information has not particularly been provided at this point. We are looking for the assessments that were done as to the physical condition of the building, for example, and the verification of the statistics concerning child enrollment in that particular school in the four or five years out from now.

We are looking forward to the meeting on the eighteenth. The parents, of course, would like to be fully prepared, and will be as prepared as they can be, but having access to that information prior to the meeting would be much appreciated.

We have also asked the Minister of Education to be in attendance. I have not had a response from her yet, but we have invited her -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: - since she lives in the district just next door and probably would be in the area. I think it would be very beneficial and educational to her, because we know this government does, of course, from time to time, take an active role in the education field, particularly when it comes to school closures, albeit they claim that it is a board responsibility.

We have seen it, for example, in Exploits. We have seen it in Eastport recently. Unfortunately, it usually takes place during the timing of a by-election and so on, but we again invite the minister to be there so that she can understand the process unfolding and have an opportunity to make any comments that she could have, to hear from the parents of that community as to why these students should be forced to leave their community to go to a school up the way, quite a distance away, and on very sometimes some treacherous roadways in Southern Newfoundland, in that particular area of Rose Blanche.

The meeting will be taking place on the eighteenth. The people will be putting forward their arguments as to why it should not close, of course, and there are numerous arguments, very, very justifiable reasons why. We appreciate the opportunity to at least have the input with the board. The parents feel certain, after we have had an opportunity to get the full information and justification from the board and to make their case, that St. Michael's, indeed, should remain open.

Again, we extended the invitation to the minister and we certainly do hope that the Minister of Education will take it upon herself to be in attendance at that particular meeting because this is important, of course, to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present this petition on behalf of the residents who signed it at Zoe's Convenience Store, Salmon Cove, Mr. Speaker, an unpaid advertisement for Zoe's.

WHEREAS conditions on Route 70 passing through Victoria and Salmon Cove is badly in need of repair; and

WHEREAS the traffic travelling over this road includes school buses, commercial trucks and patients going to hospitals; and

WHEREAS this route is part of the Conception Bay North Highway and it has deteriorated over the past number of years;

Mr. Speaker, this particular portion of Route 70 is a very important part of the transportation needs of the Trinity-Bay de Verde area, the north shore of Conception Bay, and, of course, the residents of Salmon Cove and Victoria. It is used on a daily basis to convey people to the Carbonear General Hospital and onwards to the Health Sciences Complex.

Mr. Speaker, this particular portion of highway is also subjected to a lot of commercial traffic. The number of trucks, of course, increases much more during the summer period when the two fish plants in Bay de Verde and Old Perlican are in operation.

Mr. Speaker, the number of people who use this, who commute to St. John's on a daily basis, increase at this time of the year. It is the lifeline for a number of people. This road provides necessary transportation for residents of two senior complexes. It provides transportation for ambulances that travel from Old Perlican, from the clinic to the various health providers in the area.

Mr. Speaker, this road had a small amount of patch work done last summer and that, too, has deteriorated to the point that it has made the road even worse.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the government today to ask some of their officials to go out there and do an assessment on that road. I am sure they will find, for a very small amount of money, that the road can either be patched up or resurfaced, at least giving the people of the area an opportunity to have something to drive over that is safe for them and their families.

Mr. Speaker, this road also provides access to two parks, two tourist attractions in the area, Salmon Cove Sands, which is a very busy park and the site of a major festival in the month of July, and we also have Northern Bay Sands. I am sure the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde is well familiar with it. That is also the site of a major festival.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: By leave to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of this area, I ask the government to have somebody look at this and do something to at least provide temporary repairs, if not do the proper job.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

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

Moving to Orders of the Day. Order 4, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act, known as Bill 14.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 14, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act." (Bill 14)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to say a few words on Bill 14, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, and as has already been stated by the yourself and the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation or the amendments being proposed here have been requested by a number of municipalities for some time. The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities have also requested this. The current acts, as they now stand, permit municipalities to cut off water and sewer services to individuals, homeowners or businesses or whatever the case may be, for municipal tax arrears. Normally, it is a situation where they do not like to have to do that but sometimes they are forced to cut off water and sewer and it is probably the most effective way to get the taxes that have been in arrears for, it could be a year or two years, whatever the case may be. There are other ways of collecting taxes, of course, but this is the most effective way. They can go to the courts. They can do that but that is oftentimes pretty time consuming, not really all that effective and the towns normally do not receive the amounts of money that they could receive.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, as I said, have requested this. There is not a lot to be said other than that. The municipalities across the Province have been looking for this for some time, as I stated earlier. Bill 14 would give the authority to the municipalities to cut off water and sewer services for arrears of taxes, fines, other levies that have been put forward by the municipalities. So, not only would this apply now, the new legislation to municipal tax arrears, it would also be applied to charges, such as I said, assessments, fines, and any other charges imposed by a municipality.

Again, the municipalities out there, I suppose with a declining tax base oftentimes, especially in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, find that they need to collect the revenues, and this is probably the best method to do that. We are just putting this forward for discussion in the House of Assembly. Hopefully, we will get support from both sides of the House of Assembly to approve this legislation and grant the municipalities authority to do what I have just said and, again, support the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities who have been requesting this for some time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The purpose of the act - obviously, as the minister has outlined in second reading - is to expand the ability of the councils in the City of St. John's, City of Corner Brook and City of Mount Pearl and the other municipalities to be able to find, as I said, ways to collect taxes that are not paid. Not only where nonpayment of water and sewer but also for payments of any taxes, fees, levies, assessments and fines and others. I guess where one in particular comes from is giving the municipalities a right to ticket in the Northeast Avalon. Of course, if these particular fines were not paid then, obviously - I do not know how much it would mean for the City of St. John's or the City of Corner Brook or the City of Mount Pearl. This particular piece of legislation does not apply to the rural communities as yet but I can see that as being an issue.

In the rural parts of the Province, many of the small municipalities, Mr. Speaker - it is a real challenge, there is no doubt about it, for the small municipalities to be able to collect the levies and dues that are placed on their residents. It is becoming more and more acute, and more and more difficult as more and more people move away. I was looking, in preparation for this particular legislation today, at an article on - and it is called Lost Fortune. I think the Mayor of Fortune speaks very well for many of the smaller municipalities when he said this, Mr. Speaker, and I am quoting him from the paper. "The plant closure means the town's biggest taxpayer is history. Works and services for the town are getting daily calls to shut off water as the people pack up and go." He says: "It's not just Fortune, but from Lord's Cove to Grand Bank - workers are spread all over the area. People are moving out, there's no doubt about it."

So, I guess this piece of legislation does indeed give the councils in these areas more power to be able to collect taxes on anything that the residents would owe. As I said, right now you just cut off the water and sewer if those particular taxes are not paid. What this does is not only for water and sewer but for any fee, any assessment, any levy, any fines that have been charged to the residents of the community and if these are not paid, then the councils have the right to cut off the water and sewer for these people who live in these particular houses.

I know the Federation of Municipalities wants it, I can see that, because what it would do, as I said earlier, is give the councils more added ammunition to be able to go out and collect fees that are due them. Because when they do their budgets, their budgets are pretty tight, there are no two ways about that. They do not charge the residents any more than they have to, to be able to balance the budget, but they must have a balanced budget because the legislation says so. Anytime they cannot collect the taxes, then they end up in arrears.

So, I can see why the Federation would support it, and the councils and so on, but this is only second reading and we will have an opportunity to talk about it again in committee and we will go from there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity at second reading of Bill 14 to make a few remarks. I think this legislation requires a little bit of thought. I understand that a lot of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, have a great deal of difficulty collecting taxes, fines, levies, and that sort of thing. I have a lot of sympathy for town councils and municipalities trying to do that, particularly when they themselves operate on very limited budgets and are having a lot of trouble actually paying their bills and they are all volunteers. There is a sense, in a lot of communities, that it is a real thankless task to be a part of the municipal government structure. You are there trying to get people to go along with obligations to pay taxes, because they are collective obligations. When a town has undertaken a loan to pay for a fire truck, or a loan to support the development of a water and sewer system and then some people do not want to pay their taxes, they are sort of free riders, then (inaudible) of sympathy, and say: Boy, if you are not going to pay for your water, we just borrowed $100,000 to put in a water system. You are getting the water. Everybody else is paying and you are not. Why shouldn't we be allowed to turn it off? I have a lot of sympathy for that argument. I am sympathetic to the request by the municipalities for this additional authority with respect to paying water taxes or paying these assessments.

I have a little different point of view when it comes to cities like St. John's and Corner Brook and Mount Pearl. They have big bureaucracies. They have very healthy budgets. They have very significant and sophisticated collection systems. They have lawyers working for them. They have their collections department. They have the ability to pursue these matters. In fact, in many cases they have levies put on people's property and they stay there and they collect the money when the property is sold. In some cases, they are even prepared to wait until somebody dies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the members to my left if we could have some reduction in their talking level so the Speaker can hear the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The City of St. John's, for example, there was a time - and I don't think they need to do it now, but if you buy out the freehold of your property under the Leaseholds in St. John's Act, the cost can become a charge on your property that, if it ever changes hands, you eventually have to pay it off, or it is your estate and your estate sells the property.

There are people, let's face it, on low and fixed incomes for whom a property tax can become a burden. We have seen situations in St. John's, for example, where a person living in a house paying the tax, the same income, the house increases in value. Supposing your house doubles in value in St. John's and your income stays the same. Well, your taxes are going to double and you might not be able to pay it.

So, what are we saying here? Are we saying we want to give the City of St. John's the right to turn off the taps for some pensioner who cannot afford to pay the taxes because the value of her house has increased? Is that the rules we want to put in place?

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that is a bit heavy-handed. Why should the municipality that does not need the money have that power? In the case of St. John's, or Corner Brook, or Mount Pearl, we know they are going to get it eventually because the value of the property is there.

I do have some sympathy for people in rural Newfoundland, people with towns who are losing people. I am not saying that it is okay to cut off people in rural Newfoundland and not in cities, don't get me wrong, but I think a different mentality is at work here. In rural Newfoundland and Labrador you have a smaller community, people who all know each other, who are all working together in the same community, but you may still have people who are free riders and who do not want to pay taxes. They want to take the service, but they do not want to pay the taxes. Having that ability for the council to say: Look, boy, we have a policy here. If you don't pay your water tax, you don't get any water.

It may be that there is no other way for the town to collect that money instead of spending an equal amount on hiring a lawyer to try and collect it from somebody who does not want to pay.

In those circumstances, I think there may be a case that can be made for the kind of collective will that a town council might have in trying to pay off the bills and having difficulty in doing that, and might want to ensure that people who might be reluctant to pay are given an incentive to do so by saying: We are going to give you three months to come up with the money. We still have to pay for this water system and we haven't got enough money to pay for it.

If it is a problem with individuals not having sufficient resources, then that may be an issue for income support or for the department of social services and community services to make sure that people have enough money to pay for these services that they are getting. I know there are circumstances where the people's taxes are supported, particularly for water and sewer, but we have a situation in the larger municipalities - St. John's, Corner Brook and Mount Pearl, who have their own acts - where the circumstances are entirely different.

Having the cash flow - because this is what we are talking about here - if you do not pay your taxes and the town does not have the cash flow, well, I don't think the City of St. John's is worried about the cash flow, or the City of Mount Pearl is worried about cash flow, or the City of Corner Brook is worried about cash flow, to make the loan payments on the water system.

I know there are lots of municipalities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that are, and having this additional ability may be helpful and may be a tool that they need to have. Maybe they do not have to use it, but it may be a tool that they need to have to try to convince people that they have an obligation to pay for services that the town collectively has just gone out and borrowed money to pay for and to provide. I can see why the municipalities association would support that, because that is made up of people who are in that position. The majority of people who are members and on the board of the Federation of Municipalities are people who volunteer their time to serve in small towns and communities around the Province to try and provide municipal services to the residents, and sometimes have a very difficult and thankless job to do. If they are the ones who are saying we need this tool, then I am happy to consider that.

When it comes to the City of St. John's, when it comes to the City of Mount Pearl, when it comes to the City of Corner Brook, do we really want to say to them: Yes, you can cut off the water of a senior citizen whose property value just doubled, without her doing anything except sitting in the House, the same as she has for the last twenty or thirty or forty years. All of a sudden my taxes are doubled and now you are cut off my water because I cannot afford to pay them. What are you doing, forcing me to sell my house? Are you going to force me to sell my house to pay my taxes or else cut off my water and make it impossible for me to continue to live in the house that I own, that I have lived in for fifty years? You are going to cut off my water because I can't afford to pay the rising taxes? Why don't you just keep the levy there, wait until I die, and get it from my estate? The house is going to have to be sold at some point down the road, so why give the City of St. John's, Corner Brook or Mount Pearl, the power to make my house uninhabitable, the house that I own, because, for some reason, I am unable to pay my taxes or whatever other levies or assessments are there.

I think that is wrong in those circumstances, but we are not seeing that in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. We are not seeing house prices and property values go up and double and triple, in some cases, to the point where taxes are gone through the roof and they cannot afford to pay. That is not the reason people cannot afford to pay in rural Newfoundland. From the municipalities' point of view, maybe if the people did leave and the town did take over the house for taxes, they would not be able to sell it, they would not be able to collect the taxes, and the rest of the people who are left there would be left holding the bag. That is a very different dynamic, I say to hon. members. It is a very different dynamic than you have in the cities who have their separate municipalities and separate acts.

I think there is a reason why they have separate acts. There is a reason there is a City of St. John's Act and a City of Corner Brook Act and a City of Mount Pearl Act to look after those three cities, and an another act that covers all the other municipalities of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the reason is because there is a very different kind of operation.

I would urge the minister to give some thought to these remarks and, when we get to the issue in Committee, maybe we can have a look at seeing whether all those places need those powers or maybe it is just the Municipalities Act that needs to be amended and not the City of St. John's Act, not the City of Corner Brook Act, and not the City of Mount Pearl Act.

I offer that for consideration. I think there is a very different dynamic that goes on, a very different set of considerations, and maybe that is something that we can have a closer look at before this legislation goes through the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comments by my critic on the opposite side of the House, and certainly the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. They make some good points.

My critic makes a point with respect to ticketing, that this could apply to ticketing for the City of St. Johns, the City of Corner Brook and Mount Pearl, when it is finally applicable when the ticketing is put in place. The cities are working on that now. It is in their ball court, really, to work with the Department of Justice to work out the logistics of it. So, it would apply but not to the rural parts of the Province because the ticketing will not apply to the rural parts of the Province.

He made a comment, and read from the comments of the Mayor of Fortune, that actually people are requesting to have their homes cut off and are moving away. That only shows that there are towns out there that are having their tax bases reduced and it is certainly impacting certain parts of the Province, which is more reason to implement this legislation. In talking about it, both hon. members mentioned the tight budgets especially in rural Newfoundland. I certainly appreciate that and that is one of the reasons why, of course, we are implementing this legislation.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi also mentioned St. John's, and he is comparing rural Newfoundland to St. John's and the circumstances, and wondering if we should be putting this legislation in, say, for the City of St. John's and the City of Corner Brook and the larger urban areas, Mr. Speaker. I think when you look at it from a certain perspective, that you would want to be consistent across the Province and treat everybody the same. Now, he makes some legitimate points with respect to the financial situations of the larger urban centres, but the point he made was: If in St. John's, say, or Corner Brook your assessment goes up, then the individuals living in those homes, their taxes go up and they may not be able to afford to pay. A legitimate point, make no mistake about that, Mr. Speaker, but since I have been minister I have not heard really of anybody being forced to sell their home, people who are actually living in their homes, to pay their taxes. He may know of some.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The thing is they can work that out. This is the very point I am getting to. He said they may have their water cut off. These councillors and city councils and large town councils have hearts and they understand the situation, and oftentimes they work out agreements with those individuals to allow this tax to stay with the property. They will pay what they can and they will get it back if and when the property is sold. This legislation does not change that, they can still work out these agreements. That can still happen.

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to be consistent across the Province. That is why we included all the different acts, the City of St. John's Act, the City of Corner Brook, the Municipalities Act and the St. John's Assessment Act. That is basically where I am coming from at this point in time on it. Of course, when we get to committee, Mr. Speaker, any other points that may be made, we will certainly try to address them at that point in time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 14, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act, be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act. (Bill 14).

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 14 has now been read a second time. When shall Bill 14 be referred to Committee of the Whole House?

MR. RIDEOUT: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, An Act To Amend The City of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act, read a second time, referred to a Committee of the Whole House, on tomorrow. ( Bill 14).

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. ( Bill 20).

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, " An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999." ( Bill 20)

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

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

Again, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is being put before the House of Assembly to assist the councillors who are serving on the 284 municipalities across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Prior to 1995, Mr. Speaker, if a councillor was in arrears on their taxes and the taxes had to be paid by December 31, when January 1 came around if they did not have their taxes paid they were automatically removed from council, no appeal, no nothing. That was the legislation and that was it. Last year, I think it was the spring of 2005, we made some changes to that and we were trying to improve that situation, whereby the town clerk, the town manager, would give notice to a councillor thirty days prior to when their taxes would have to be paid so they could have the opportunity to pay their taxes, because we lost some really good councillors. Maybe they could not afford to pay their taxes, they may have been out of the Province, they may have forgotten, whatever the case may be. When we did that, Mr. Speaker, we also put into place that the taxes would have to be paid by June 30. When we did that, of course, some of the councillors out there, and rightly so, felt- why we did that, Mr. Speaker, was to show that the councillors that are elected would lead by example. That is one of the reasons why we did that.

On second thought, and with representation from the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities - some councillors out there felt that the councillors who were volunteering their time on these councils were being discriminated against - and on sober second thought that seems to be the case. People living in the towns, the taxpayers, had till December 31 to pay their taxes and councillors had till June 30 to pay their taxes, basically, if the town set June 30 as the deadline. Some towns may have set March 31 as the deadline and then they had to have their taxes paid within three months. Oftentimes municipalities out there will take postdated cheques for up till December 31, maybe take ten or twelve cheques, or five or six cheques, and people who were serving on council could not do that, because the legislation was not really quite clear. I felt that they could do it but the legislation was not quite clear giving the authority to do that.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing now is, we are saying we are correcting that problem. We are saying that any elected councillor out there now does not have to have their taxes paid until December 31, just like any other taxpayer. Now, once they are given their thirty days notice, say as of December 1, by the town clerk or the town manager they have thirty days to pay. In this, there is a clause which will allow them an extra thirty days, or thirty-one days really to January 31, more of a clause, I suppose, to just assist. These councillors oftentimes are putting in a lot of time and effort and they are getting no money in return for their services. All we are doing is just putting this in place, this extra thirty-one days, to give them a chance to get the money.

Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, we have heard - now, this may be small, I suppose, some people may consider it insignificant - but we have had complaints that people went to pay their taxes over the Christmas holidays but the town council office was closed and they didn't get it removed from council. That is what we have heard that could happen. Some people may be out of the Province and may not get back in time. We are just giving them, basically, thirty-one days of grace. I don't think it is unfair or unreasonable to do that, especially when these individuals are really contributing all their time.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I served as a mayor of a small town for seven years before I got elected to provincial politics, and the councillors do put in a lot of time and effort. Those people who are serious about it, who are really committed to their communities, I see this thirty-one days grace as, basically, a little payback for the time and effort they put in. Mr. Speaker, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Basically that is what this amendment is all about. As I said earlier, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities did make representation to me on this, any number of towns over the past year or so, and I had basically committed that I would bring legislation to the House of Assembly this session of the House to correct the problem, because if we don't do it now, this June 30 the individuals on the council will be impacted. We really need to get this through the House of Assembly in this session unless, of course, in the wisdom of the members of the House of Assembly, they decide to vote against this and not put it through the House. I don't see that, I think most people here are quite reasonable, Mr. Speaker, and see the benefits and the common sense in this amendment to the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister said, really it is again a piece of legislation on which changes have been recommended to him by the Federation of Municipalities. Again, I would think it would refer more to the smaller rural communities than it would to the cities. Anytime, I guess, where you can make it fairer and even a bit easier for many of these volunteers who serve on the small councils, in case something goes wrong, so that they can preserve their seats and continue the work within the community, there is nothing wrong with it.

In many of the municipalities, as the minister would know, and being a former minister myself and a former councillor in a small town for fifteen years, I recognize the work that council and mayors do. In many of the smaller communities - I know that I served for fifteen years and there was no remuneration. I doubt if there is any remuneration in that town today or many of the others. What people do to maintain their comminutes and to make sure that the community is in a whole - it is not always easy to find people to volunteer to become councillors and mayors. In a small town where everybody knows you and everybody knows your business, it is very difficult sometimes to even get your staff to go out and cut off water because sometimes it is their brothers or their sisters, or sister-in-laws, or family residences where they do it.

Many of these people who come forward in the communities are those who have served for a long, long time. I know when I was with the Federation of Municipalities and as minister, you were giving out plaques for people who served for twenty, twenty-five and thirty years, as you would know yourself, Mr. Speaker, being a long time municipal representative in the City of Mount Pearl.

If this is what the Federation would wish, if this is what they would want so that they would not make any inequalities - easier for the people who are elected to serve and in case something should go wrong, give a day of grace, not more than forty, not less than thirty-one, then I would agree that we should do it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a few comments on Bill 20. This seems to be a very sensible amendment. We have had situations where, really through no fault of their own, councillors have become disqualified from sitting. I think everybody, let's face it, knows that at times it is pretty difficult in some communities to get people to run for council. Unfortunately, and maybe it is because of the experience of the City of St. John's, municipal politics seems to attract a bit of nastiness from time to time. I do not know if it is the bad example of the City of St. John's Council or what, but sometimes people are looking for an excuse to get someone else who is on the council that they do not like, or for whatever reason.

This particular provision of the Municipalities Act has given people ammunition to get somebody. Sometimes it has been through no fault whatsoever of the individual involved . I think the provision is there, I suppose - and I am not even sure why they put the purpose of the provision. Maybe the minister can give us a chapter and verse on that from the municipal bible as to why it is that provision is there. I suspect it is there because you would not want somebody on council who have owed taxes because they might do something to favour themselves or to try and write off their taxes. I am not even sure why it is a disqualification for someone being a councillor if they are in arrears on taxes. I am not even sure what it is. Maybe the concern is that there would be a temptation to do something to favour themselves or to not pay their taxes or some such thing like that, or maybe, if this new bill comes in, it might mean a temptation to try to avoid having your water cut off or something like that and have policies on arrears apply to you. I am not sure what the real reason is, but I think it is an unfortunate - what I have seen over the last few years is a number of cases where this has had unfortunate results and good, competent people, who wanted to serve their community, had their seats declared vacant or their election set aside because they, for one reason or another, had neglected to pay their taxes, or were not even aware that their taxes were in arrears. So this seems to be a sensible remedy to that, that an obligation is placed on the clerk.

Maybe we should go further, I suppose, and say that if the clerk actually fails to give this notice - because that might happen too. Maybe the clerk might neglect to do it. If the clerk fails to give such notice, for whatever reason, that the provision declaring their seat vacant does not apply. This amendment, I think, is designed to protect someone being inadvertently tossed off a council that they volunteered for, that they ran for and they got elected to, and all good people who want to serve their community, find themselves in a legal conundrum, embarrassed, unelected and disgraced in front of their fellow members of the community and probably will not run. If they went and paid their taxes and had a by-election, they would not want to run. I think that would be wrong, Mr. Speaker.

I think maybe this provision is a good one. I think it is good that it is brought forward. I congratulate the minister on trying to close this loophole, but maybe we should go a little bit further and say: Look, in the absence of the notice provided for in the new section, 103.1, that section 206.1, I think it is, does not apply. Again, that is something that we can discuss at the committee stage. Maybe we should provide some additional protection there so that if the notice that the act requires does not, in fact, go out and the person is not sent the notice, then they should not be arbitrarily - what is wrong with this provision, that is now being amended, is that it is one of these things that acts arbitrarily. It acts on its own without any possibility of appeal or consideration or lack of notice, or anything like that. That is one of the problems with arbitrary legislation. It has an effect whether there is a good reason for it or not. I guess there are some good reasons for having the legislation in the first place and I cannot think, off the top of my head, what they might be, but perhaps the minister can, and when he closes debate on this amendment, give us the rationale that exists for that. Maybe he did it when he spoke the first time. Perhaps he did and I missed it because I was having a conversation with another member.

In principle, at second reading, Mr. Speaker, I certainly support this amendment and our caucus supports the amendment at second reading and we hope to consider whether or not it can be improved during Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to clue up debate on this amendment. Again, some good points being made by both members on the opposite side of the House. The hon. critic, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, made the point that if you can make it easier, in some small way, to get people to run on these municipal councils, because it is getting more difficult all the time and this, in some small way, will assist that. Well, certainly he has no problem with it and I do not either.

Now, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi made a couple of points that I want to address. He talked about - again, rightly so, and I believe it to be the case - that in the past, if you had personality clashes on council, Mr. Speaker, that some individuals did try to use this legislation to get someone they did not like. That happened, so we are trying to correct that problem.

Then he talked about: Why would this section be in there anyway with respect to disqualification? Again, as I said earlier, we were trying to get councillors to lead by example, to have their taxes paid. We cannot have someone sitting on council making a decision to cut somebody's water off to collect taxes when they owe taxes themselves. That is where the mind set was, Mr. Speaker.

Then he says, if the clerk fails - and a point he brought up, too, which I will give some consideration to, Mr. Speaker, was the fact that if the clerk fails to notify an individual that they have thirty days left. Well, then, I think you would have a case for an appeal anyway, but we need to get this through the House this session. It is something that I would like to address and probably bring back, have discussions with the Federation of Municipalities on that issue, and if it needs to be amended in future dates, I will certainly have no problem in bringing it forward.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will close debate.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 20 has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Later today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Later.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 20)

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

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

Order 16, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

On motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991." (Bill 13)

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

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

I rise today, as the Minister of Justice, to introduce Bill 13, which is entitled An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991.

Late last year, Mr. Speaker, the High Sheriff of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. David Jones, wrote to me to request this amendment be made to the Sheriff's Act. The purpose of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, is to help reduce the red tape that presently exists with some of the Province's legislation, and to afford individuals entitled to be paid monies that have been paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund by the Sheriff's Office an easier and a more streamlined method in order to access those monies.

At present, Mr. Speaker, I am advised there are a number of situations which arise where the Sheriff's Office has, in fact, collected funds on judgements on behalf of individuals. These individuals may have moved and have left no forwarding address, or have died and no record exists in this jurisdiction of the person's estate being probated or administered.

The Sheriff's Office is then left in a situation in which it is unable to locate the person or persons who are, in fact, entitled to these monies that the Sheriff's Office has collected. In such cases, it is the practice of the Sheriff's Office, pursuant to section 19 of the Sheriff's Act of 1991 - and it is the same procedure that the Sheriff's Office has been following for over ten years - to pay the money into the Consolidated Revenue Fund two years after it cannot locate the creditor concerned.

Periodically, Mr. Speaker, subsequent to the payment of the monies into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, individuals who are entitled to the monies, or those who claim to be entitled to the monies, find, or are found by, the Sheriff's Office.

Under the present law, Mr. Speaker, where such an individual is identified, irrespective of the amount of money owing to them, they are forced under the current legislation to make an application to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division, in order to obtain an order from that court ordering the Minister of Finance to pay such monies out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to them.

This application to the Supreme Court, of course, can be costly and it can be time-consuming to the person or persons concerned. While the number of persons affected by this situation is relatively small, it is significant to the person who may be involved.

I am advised by the High Sheriff, Mr. Speaker, that there is little doubt as to the identity of the individual or the individuals entitled, although the situation can be complicated if the individual or the individuals owe money to others with judgements that are registered at the Sheriff's Office. I am advised that in the last five years the total of all such amounts paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund in respect of creditors that the Sheriff's Office could not find was approximately $7,000.

The purpose of this amendment contained in the bill is to change the law to afford individuals entitled to the money, or claiming to be entitled to the money, an easier and more streamlined method of accessing such funds which, in all such cases, needlessly has to be taken pursuant to an application to the courts.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out that the bill does not eliminate resort to the courts by individuals claiming entitlement in appropriate cases. Rather, it preserves it for its proper use in all cases of doubt about the identity or the propriety of the payment of funds out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to a claiming individual or individuals.

The changes in the law that are proposed are very simple and straightforward. Section 1 makes it clear which minister is responsible for the Sheriff's Act of 1991, and it also makes clear who may be the claimants under the section. The definition contained in the bill basically covers any person or persons who may claim entitlement to the monies in question.

Section 3 of the bill contains its operative provisions and affects the procedural changes in the law to which I have been referring. It sets out a straight forward methodology for persons claiming an interest in the monies to follow without needlessly having to first apply to the Supreme Court Trial Division.

Simply put, now all they have to do is make an application to the Department of Justice through the minister for a declaration that they are legally entitled to the monies concerned. The application in section 2 of the bill makes clear that it will be in the form of a sworn or an affirmed statement containing information related to and supporting the application.

Also, section 2, as a matter of prudence, says the statement must be accompanied by a bond of indemnity evidencing that the applicant has money or monies worth equivalent to the amount of the payout sought. The form of the bond is similar to one used in the case of probate or administration of estates, and would allow for actions against individuals who gave the bond in cases where the money is wrongfully claimed - paid out to the wrong people.

In the spirit of government's commitment to timely response to these inquiries, the bill imposes time limits for dealing with such an application. The Minister of Justice, when satisfied with the application, must notify the Minister of Finance of this fact within between fifteen and thirty days of the application being received. This period was chosen so as to give staff ample time to deal with such applications.

In the case of doubt, where the minister is not satisfied with an application's merits, the applicant does have a right to make an application where the amount claimed is $5,000 or less to the Provincial Court or, where the amount claimed is greater than $5,000, to the Supreme Court. This provision is in keeping with the jurisdictional limits of these courts and money judgements.

Where such an application is made, a judge of the court to which it is directed will then make an order determining if the applicant is entitled to the monies and directing the Minister of Finance in the appropriate case to pay that monies out to the person or persons entitled to it.

To protect third party rights, Mr. Speaker, the bill gives third parties, such as creditors of the claimant with a judgement that is registered at the Sheriff's Office, or others claiming an interest in the monies concerned, the right to apply to the relevant court for a ruling as to whether they or somebody else is entitled to the money. Where a third party does not make such an application within fifteen days of an application, and the Minister of Justice is satisfied as to the applicant's entitlement, the bill makes it clear that the Minister of Finance, on the request of the Minister of Justice, will cause the money concerned to be paid out to the applicant. Whenever there is any doubt as to entitlement to the money, the applicant, or a third party, will be directed to take an application to the court to resolve the matter.

Mr. Speaker, these measures will assist the public and will help the Sheriff in doing his job. I would ask, therefore, the support of all hon. colleagues in passing this amendment to The Sheriff's Act, 1991, which the High Sheriff of Newfoundland and Labrador has requested to approve, improve and streamline, access by entitled persons to our system of justice in respect of monies that may be owed to them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words about Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991, at second reading.

I listened to the minister's explanation of this legislation. It is somewhat technical, but what it really does, I guess, is provide a means and a procedure whereby people can get money owed to them because the Sheriff's Office and the Estates Office, I guess, from time to time ends up with money that is the property of other people or the property of people who are entitled to it, whether it be under an estate where the beneficiaries cannot be found and the money is sitting in these accounts. The money eventually is turned over to the public purse, to the Treasury, the so-called Consolidated Revenue Fund. If that person shows up, how does he or she get the money? That is really the question that is being answered by this bill.

When the minister introduced the bill, he said it was designed to reduce red tape. I am not sure it actually accomplishes that. It creates a bit of red tape, but at least it creates a procedure whereby the person who was entitled to the money can actually get, with some ease, either the money or a means to go to court and ask the judge to issue an order. Clearly the minister, on being provided the proper identification of themselves as being the person entitled, are most likely to get their money in any event without any particular difficulty once they have established to the satisfaction, as the bill says, to the minister that they are the actual person or the real person entitled.

There can always, of course, be questions, there can always be disputes, there could be someone else claiming the money, there could be creditors claiming the money, there could be some other person who claims to be the right person, or various other reasons that could occur. There could be a trustee in bankruptcy. Who knows, Mr. Speaker, there could be any set of circumstances. The bill provides for someone else who has a claim to participate as well in an action either before the Provincial Court, where it is less than $5,000, or before a judge of the Trial Division if the matter is greater than $5,000.

I do not have any technical issue with the details of this. It establishes, for the first time, a procedure. It seems to be a sensible procedure. It seems to be something that is easy of operation. As the minister has indicated, the High Sheriff of Newfoundland, who is responsible for the administration of these funds and these policies, has brought this forward as a sensible amendment to the Sheriff's Act, and I do not see anything wrong with it, Mr. Speaker. It seems to provide an opportunity for the person to get this money on the basis, initially at least, of a sworn declaration and a bond of indemnity saying that if there is a difficulty here, that someone is prepared to stand by me, as an individual, to make good any claim if it turns out that I have been wrongfully entitled to it. That is, as the minister said, no different than if you have the administration of an estate where there is no executor appointed under a will. So there is provision for that.

I guess, in the case of hardship there may be difficulty if someone cannot come up with a bond, but in those circumstances that might provide some difficulty for the person who is owed the money who does not have a bond. I understand there are commercial bonds available that potentially could solve the problem. You may have difficulty if you have a minor - that is the one area I think there may be some concern with, there is no provision for the waiver of a bond in particular circumstances. That is something I will take up with the minister in the meantime and perhaps see again if there is a need to make provision for the waiver of a bond. That may be something that can also be dealt with at committee. Perhaps the bond could be waived by the court if possible or if necessary.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, those are all my remarks on Bill 13. We support this amendment in principle, which is the test at second reading, whether the bill in principle is something that could be supported, and this is one that we have no hesitation in supporting. It seems to be a sensible measure that will provide for a procedure to allow people to get money that they are entitled to.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words here in second reading on this bill, which is amending the Sheriff's Act.

At this point, of course, it is pretty general discussion in a matter of principle, and I have a couple of questions about it that I am sure the minister will address when he has the opportunity.

One in particular concerns the issue of the bonding. I notice it says in section 2, subsection 3, that the person who is applying to have the monies paid out must make a written application to the minister, and along with the written application he must submit a bond of indemnity in item B. I understand the purpose of the amendment is to make it more simple so that a person who wants to get money out of the sheriff's office can simply write to the minister rather than have to go to the court, and the minister can then direct the Minister of Finance to pay it out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

On the one hand we are trying to simplify a process so that people who are entitled to the money can get the money, but on the other hand it seems we might even be complicating it a bit more, because as part of the process of writing to the minister to get that direction being given to the Minister of Finance we are talking about a bond of indemnity having to be posted.

I am wondering if maybe the minister can give us some clarification as to what is involved in this bond of indemnity. Will it, for example, involve securities having to be posted? Will it simply be a written bond that someone pledges to pay and so on? I would like an answer to that, if we might, from the minister, because there is not much point in doing an amendment that is intended to simplify if indeed we are not simplifying, or conversely, if we are in fact complicating the process.

I also wonder if the minister might respond in regard to section 2, subsection 4(a) as well, which talks about the time in which the minister shall respond to the applicant. It reads right now: "Where the minister is satisfied that a person applying under subsection (2) is entitled to the money, the minister shall, (a) not sooner than 15 days after receipt of the application; and (b) not later than 30 days after receipt of the application notify the Minister of Finance...." I can see why we have the outside range of thirty days, because that, of course, makes sure that the applicant will get an answer from government within thirty days. That would seem to be pretty compliant with other legislation we have in terms of FOIs and so on, but I wonder what is the logic behind having the minimum days of fifteen days?

For example, if I wrote a letter to the minister on May 1 and the minister was not busy and the minister could check out the facts within two days and give that direction to the Minister of Finance to get this process simplified, why must we wait the fifteen days before the minister can even act. It seems to me that the minister is tying his own hands in a sense, instead of trying to keep it simple. Yes, the minister must get some kind of response done within thirty days. That makes sense, that puts the onus on the minister to act, but I do not think we need to hamstring the minister in a minimum time period. If the minister feels and wants to get it done within two days, why shouldn't the minister be allowed to do that?

I just raise those questions, and I am sure the minister, if he has an opportunity to consider these points, might respond.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I appreciate the comments made by the Government House Leader and the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

First of all, with respect to the bond, the intent of the bond is not to be a bond that is a bond from an insurance company. The intent behind the legislation is, right now an applicant for the money has to make an application to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division, which is a timely process and also could be an expensive process.

The whole purpose behind these amendments, and the reason the High Sheriff of Newfoundland and Labrador has, in fact, requested these amendments is to provide more timely and cheaper access to justice by these claimants and to have, instead, the claim to come to the Minister of Justice instead of an application to the court. The Minister of Justice would then determine, based on an application from the claimant, whether the money can be paid out of Consolidated Revenue or not. The concern, of course, is that if the Minister of Justice were to make a mistake and direct that the funds be paid out and direct the Minister of Finance to pay the monies out, that if the funds were, in fact, paid to the wrong person, it would be necessary for government to have a remedy to be able to go after the person who improperly got the money and order that the money be returned.

The purpose of the bond is simply to set out the obligation of the person who receives the money that in the event the monies are determined, subsequently, to have been improperly paid out, that person will return the monies to government in order for government to pass the monies on to the party that is, in fact, entitled to the monies. So, there is no intent for an insurer and a bond from an insurance company. It is merely, the indemnity will be provided by the person who receives the funds and it will back up the obligation of that person, that they will pay the monies back to the government in the event that it should be subsequently determined that the monies were paid to the wrong person.

With respect to the comments made by the Opposition House Leader, with respect to the time limits. I have to tell him that I am unaware of why the fifteen-day period was there and why there is a requirement that the minister not provide an answer until the fifteen days go by. I understand that there are procedures that the Minister of Finance has to go through and that there will be a minimum period of time when the claimant cannot expect to receive the funds. The purpose, I would imagine, of section 15, or to the fifteen day delay, is to allow officials in the Department of Finance to have a certain period of time to ensure that their records were checked and that the monies were properly paid out. But, on the other hand, we wanted also to put a thirty-day limit, a thirty-day maximum so that these people would not have to wait an undue amount of time to receive the funds. So, I think a two-week delay is not unreasonable. It would give government officials in both Justice and the Department of Finance time to do what they had to do in order to disperse the funds and, obviously, the fifteen days would be there for that purpose.

So, having made those remarks, I will conclude and urge the passage of this legislation so that the High Sheriff can carry out his functions in a more efficient manner.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 13 has now been read a second time. When shall Bill 13 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Later, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Later.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

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

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

I would like to move the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain matters to Bill 14, Bill 20 and Bill 13.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I want to move to the Committee stage of debate on Bill 14, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act.

CHAIR: The Committee of the Whole is about to hear debate on Bill 14, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act.

The hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party and Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I did not really anticipate having committee stage today, so we have not prepared amendments. I listened with interest to the minister's comments about how the City of St. John's and other councils might operate with respect to this power of cutting off water and sewer. I wonder if the minister or his officials have had discussions with these officials from these cities with respect to this amendment and to see how, in fact, they would administer such a power? Because I, too, have heard of special circumstances where a taxpayer might be able to make individual arrangements to leave the taxes on the books, pay a portion and eventually have the amounts collected when the property is sold. I am wondering, are there any policies of that kind actually in effect with those cities for all people who come into that situation or is it done on an individual coming forward basis, saying: Look, I really have a serious problem or some councillor takes up their cause? If there was a policy in place in each of these cities that said: Look, we are not going to do this except in particular circumstances, then I might have a little bit more sympathy for having what the minister called consistency across the board in terms of municipal powers. It seems to me that the easiest thing for these city councils to do would be put a policy in place which says that if you haven't got your taxes paid by a certain date, that your water is going to get cut off.

As MHAs, all of us deal with people who end up with cut off notices for light and power. That is a pretty frightening thing for someone to get a notice in the mail, saying: we are going to cut off your power if you do not pay your bill by a certain period of time, especially if you have electric heat. Nobody wants to be left in the dark, Mr. Chair, and Newfoundland Light and Power sends out cut-off notices and the person panics and they call their MHA. If they have no money, they call whoever they can to try and resolve the problem, but still, as a matter of policy, these things go out all the time. Newfoundland Light and Power is a private enterprise and they are entitled to do that. There are certain rules set up by the PUB that control when they can do that, and it is governed by some outside body, but I would not want to see a situation where we had a blanket policy in place for a large municipality that did not really need the money, did not really need the cash flow, was not a situation where the community was in dire straights because they could not pay the payments on their loans unless everybody paid their taxes.

I do not know if I would really want to leave it to the cities to put this kind of power in place. It is heavy-handed, and it can be used in a heavy-handed way. I would like to have a greater level of comfort, and maybe the minister already has it. I know he said that cities do this from time to time, but have these cities - St. John's, Corner Brook and Mount Pearl - made their policies clear to the minister's department to give him some level of comfort in seeing this legislation passed, to give them the power that they might not even need to meet their needs? Whereas, I can see where smaller towns and municipalities around the Province may need this kind of power to have a way of ensuring that people who are part of a town, who have obligations for water and sewer systems, are able to meet their obligations to do that.

I ask the minister if he has any further thoughts on that, that he can contribute to this debate?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

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

As I stated earlier, one of the reasons we are doing this, of course, is to have it Province-wide, the cities and the larger towns and the smaller towns, for consistency; make no mistake about that.

The point you make with respect to the larger cities not being in the same financial situation as some of the smaller towns, where do you cut it off? I mean, if you look at the City of Mount Pearl versus, say, the Town of Conception Bay South, and the Town of Conception Bay South versus, say, the Town of Clarenville, where do you cut if off? Where is the cut-off point? Where do you make that determination?

I know you have read this, but in each clause in this amendment it says that the council may disconnect; not that they will. We have situations now in the Province where people owe their taxes and they work out deals with these individuals or companies, or whatever the case may be, and they can pay it over a certain period of time. I do not see that changing.

I know the people within the department have had discussions with the various towns and the Federation of Municipalities and they feel quite comfortable that what we are putting forth would serve the purpose, to achieve what we are setting out to achieve.

I will get back to, again, the councils are elected councillors and most of them - I suppose you might come across the odd one - have hearts and see the situation. It is on an individual basis. They come forward, make their cases, and oftentimes, in the larger cities, this probably would not even get to the city council or the large town council; it would be done by the administration.

To me, I feel confident enough to let it go as it is, and not make changes. If need be, down the road, if you saw a situation where an individual was genuinely discriminated against, well, then, we would have to have a look at it, but I do not see the necessity at this point in time.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I can see from the discussion that an amendment at this point would not serve a purpose, and I understand there may well be a comfort level within the department of how cities and towns might operate. I guess the reason there could be a cut-off is because we have different legislation for municipalities in general and for the three cities that we are talking about, each of which are very healthy financially, and in each of which different considerations would apply to the municipalities as a whole. That is a very easy way of cutting it off.

I guess my concern is that it is open, again, to the kind of arbitrariness you might find, saying: Okay, they could have a policy in place and then officials are left to follow the policy and you do not have exceptions; but I have some comfort, I suppose, in the minister's comments saying that, if this becomes a problem, if there is abuse to it, that the legislation can be changed.

I hope that the departmental officials and members in general would be vigilant to seeing how this policy is actually carried out in their respective districts, because it is something - we are all a part of government here, in one form or another, in a democracy, and I think all of us hate to see the kind of power that governments can have abused. Whether that government is a provincial government or a federal government or a municipal government, the kind of abusive power that can happen that could hurt individuals is a very important concern that we have to have. When I see us being given these powers, municipalities asking for more powers, more powers that can have very significant effects on people's lives - you know, we have seen the ticketing come along. We have seen the ability to give tickets. In fact, we had to throw out a particular piece of legislation that had a reverse onus. I remember some legislation was brought here a few years ago -

Mr. Chairman, I am having difficulty hearing myself talk here. If I could have a little bit of assistance from the -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I am having even more difficulty hearing the Government House Leader, Mr. Chairman, because he is not even at his seat.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am trying to help you out.

MR. HARRIS: He is trying to help me out with some suggestions.

My concern, Mr. Chairman, whenever we are giving out power, the question is: How is the power going to be used? That is the point I am raising here.

We had a bill brought to this House a few years ago - we were talking about ticketing. The Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune talked about the ticketing power. When that legislation was brought before the House first, we even had a situation where there was an obligation on the person who got the ticket to prove that they were innocent in order for them not to be convicted of an offence.

Wisdom, cooler heads, prevailed, I suppose, when the matter was brought to the attention of the government at the time by me and by others who agreed with it. Once it was brought to their attention, the legislation was withdrawn and dropped and it had to go back for an overhaul. It got a major overhaul I would submit, Mr. Chairman, before it was brought back to the House. It was brought back in better shape, in conformity with the normal rules, to prevent abuses and to prevent people having to go and force them to prove their innocence in the system that we have.

It is with that in mind that I bring this up. I am glad to hear the minister say that his officials will be very vigilant to ensure that the kind of policies that have been in place, or the kind of instances where agreements have been put in place, that it continues, and I hope he can give us the assurance that if he finds out that is not continuing and that people are being treated arbitrarily, that he will bring back legislation to put some strict guidelines around the use of this power.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to ask the minister a couple of questions on this piece of legislation.

One of the things that is very important when you bring in a piece of legislation, or change legislation, is: Has there been any thought given to the fact that an information or communications package go to every one of the municipalities and to the towns? Because, if that is not done then obviously it will create unnecessary problems for many of the rural councils in particular, probably not so much so for those in the city.

I am wondering if the minister could comment on that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

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

The hon. member makes a good point, Mr. Chair. I have no problems in committing to that, that we would notify all of the municipalities of the changes to the legislation and let them know how this applies and what action they should or should not be taking.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Section 5 of the legislation here of Bill 14, up to the first four deals with levies and fines for the City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl, and Corner Brook municipalities. Number 5 has to do with the St. John's Assessment.

I am wondering if the minister might take a moment to explain to us, for example, section 5.100(1): "The council may, immediately after January 1 and July 1 in each year, take proceedings to recover all amounts due for taxes, fees, levies, assessments, fines and other charges......" I am wondering if you are making this consistent with the Municipalities Act that governs all other municipalities.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

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

I say to the hon. member opposite, I believe this is consistent with the St. John's Assessment Act, to basically correspond with what is existing at the present time, those dates.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That is all that I would have. I think that, as the Member for Quidi Vidi has said, I am sure the minister will be vigilant to make sure that the people in the municipalities are not unnecessarily inconvenienced by any of this and that his people in the department will make sure that the people are dealt with fairly. As he said it is ‘may' not ‘shall'. Hopefully, the council will not have to say shall in order to do that and common sense will prevail, to be able to treat the people in the communities fairly. I know that they will because there are many good people in the councils, but you never know when somebody might.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder if the minister could tell us - I think he has taken up the suggestion, or at least acknowledged, that part of this process will be to provide a package of information to councils on this particular provision.

Does the minister plan to have some policy guidelines to suggest to municipalities as to how they might implement such a policy, because municipalities often do look to the Province for guidelines? It is one thing to say you have this power, but quite often very many municipalities that we have who are now going to have this power do not necessarily have a bureaucracy of people who are policy oriented that could put these guidelines out. I wonder would it be helpful if the minister could put together suggested guidelines or approach that municipalities might go through before they go ahead and do this.

You would not want councils to feel that now that we have this power, even though it says may, that they really should start exercising it willy-nilly. Maybe it would be very helpful, in the introduction of this new legislation and policy, for the minister's department to put together a set of guidelines or a policy that the department would support, and perhaps even a suggested policy that might be adopted by a town council or a municipal council so that the residents of that town would have some forewarning as to when they might be confronted with the possible cut off of their water and sewer coverage.

I know some towns may feel that they desperately have to collect the taxes, and they might feel that anybody in arrears is going to be cut off on ten days notice after arrears start, and that would not be right. Obviously, people need to have a bit of time to deal with that, and maybe it would be helpful if the department itself, when sending around information on this, put out suggested guidelines or suggested policy that might be adopted by a town council or municipality in the use of this fairly severe power. Let's face it, if you are taking away the water and sewer to a house you are basically making it uninhabitable.

There was a time fifty years ago, Mr. Speaker, when many homes in Newfoundland and Labrador did not have water or sewer. That was the way people lived. Nowadays, almost every home in this Province has running water and sewer of some kind or another. Obviously, if it is a municipality and people are used to having water, or water and sewer in their homes, to do without that can render the home uninhabitable, and that is a pretty draconian thing.

Perhaps the minister and his officials can put together that package to include a suggested policy as to how this power might be used, what notification people might be given, and some suggested way of implementing this power so that people are certainly aware of it, but that they are not taken by surprise and they do not all of a sudden come home one day and find someone in their house or on their property disconnecting the water or sewer.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

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

It is certainly a good suggestion, I would say to you, Mr. Chair. I would not want to see this power being abused as I would not want to see any power or any law being abused by anybody, any municipality or any corporation, whatever the case may be.

Usually, my understanding, having been there, is that before they cut the water and sewer off, or services to a home - it is usually a last effort. It really, really is. To put a policy in place from the Department of Municipal Affairs, oftentimes, on a regular basis, the municipal training division of Municipal Affairs has training sessions for the municipalities, and if they have any questions or concerns they can always connect the department. That happens on a routine basis.

Again, a general outline as a general policy for the municipalities to follow, we can certainly put something in the package that would go out to them to say, this is something that you could implement or some variation of that. We are having no problem with that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Should clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 5 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 2 to 5 are carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 5 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor in House of Assembly in Legislation Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City of Mount Pearl Act, The City of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 14, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act carried without amendment.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 14 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

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

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

The Committee stage of debate on An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 20)

CHAIR: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act to Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999." (Bill 20)

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just a point, again, of clarification, just to make sure that exactly what we have here is my understanding. The person who is a councillor or mayor in any of the towns in rural Newfoundland or in the city or wherever the case might be, they have a year to pay the taxes. If at the end of that year that is not paid, there is an additional grace of thirty to forty days in case something had happened or that particular person did not have it paid. That is my understanding. I am wondering if the minister can clarify that for me if that is right?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

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

What it says, I will just read it out: the Clerk shall, in writing, not more than forty days and not fewer than thirty days before the end of the financial year advise each councillor of the status of the councillor's tax account. What will happen, they are given thirty to forty days notice. Now, once December 31 comes, taxes not paid, they have until January 31 to pay up. So the notice is thirty to forty days - not the time to have your taxes paid but the notice.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess the situation here is where we have the tax bill, they have a full year to pay it. Then if they do not pay it, they still have a grace period of another thirty days but the clerk is required to give the notice prior to the end of the financial year. So they have thirty days notice of the end of the financial year, plus another thirty days notice to pay it. So, they actually have sixty days notice of the fact that their taxes have not been paid. The end of the financial year is approaching - and I presume this is a tax bill that was sent out at the beginning of the fiscal year. I do not know about most municipalities, but I know the City of St. John's sends you out a notice of your taxes and then they send you out a notice a month later saying you have not paid them. Then they send you out another notice a month later saying they are going to charge you interest if you do not pay them within another month, and they do that to everybody. I do not know about other municipalities. I know St. John's is very vigorous.

MR. E. BYRNE: Do you pay your bills?

MR. HARRIS: What the Government House Leader has done, he has revealed the fact that I obviously know about this because I must get more than one tax bill so I obviously do not pay them immediately or otherwise I would not even know about the second notice. At least it is brought to your attention, Mr. Chair, on a regular basis by the City of St. John's so you do know it. I presume that municipalities would not wait until the end of the year to send out a second notice.

I think this is a different scheme than the one where people (inaudible) become automatically vacated without any notice to them. So, perhaps the amendment that I was suggesting may not be necessary. My colleague from Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune said that they would have a full year, plus they would have the thirty days notice, plus they would have the end of the year notice, and presumably at the end of the year they would have a new bill for the new taxation year that would indicate that there are arrears, plus they have a new bill to pay. So, it seems to me that this new situation here may well be sufficient to cover the case.

I was suggesting at second reading, as the minister knows, that maybe some provision would say that if they do not get this notice then they do not have the opportunity. I guess it is pretty clear that at the end of the year a new tax bill would go out. They would get their new notice, that would make it clear that not only do they have their new years bills owed, but also the tax arrears.

So, based on the comments of my colleague from Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune and our discussion that we had between second reading and now, I think I am satisfied with the bill as it is.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

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

I certainly appreciate the comments by both of the hon. members opposite. The other point is that if we did not put in that thirty-one days after December 31, well then the same situation would apply, where the councillors would be automatically removed from council on January 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 20 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move to Committee stage debate on the final bill this afternoon, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991. (Bill 13)

CHAIR: Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991.

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991 carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 13 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. Minister of Natural Resources and Government House Leader.

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

I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report bills 13, 14 and 20 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that bills 14, 20 and 13 passed without amendment.

When shall these report be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bills be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I move third reading of bill 14, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under our parliamentary procedures we would proceed to this reading with consent.

Consent is given.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 14, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 14 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act. (Bill 14)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 14 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title as on the Order Paper.

Om motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The St. John's Assessment Act, read a third time, ordered passed and its title as on the Order Paper. (Bill 14)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 20, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 20 be now read a third time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 20 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend the Municipalities Act, 1999," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 13 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991. (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 13 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title as on the Order Paper.

On motion, Bill 13 read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 13)

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

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

That is a pretty significant body of work done this afternoon in terms of legislation, so with that, I now move that the House adjourn and back on Monday at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn until Monday at 1:30 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

The motion is carried. This House now stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.