Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 23 November 1998 (43rd General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIII No. 46)
1998-11-23
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November 23, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 46
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we begin our routine business, I would like to welcome today on
behalf of all members, Mayor Walwin Blackmore from the town of Grand Falls-Windsor.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table today a
proposed bill entitled
An Act Respecting Child, Youth and Family Services. This Act is
intended to replace the current Child Welfare Act legislation which was based on the
Welfare of Children Act, 1944,
an act which is older than our own Province.
This proposed legislation represents a fundamental shift in the way
child welfare services will be provided in our Province. Government, in cooperation with
its regional partners, will continue to implement programs and services that are child
centred and aimed at prevention and early intervention.
The proposed bill is based on an extensive review of the existing child
welfare legislation and programs which was initiated during 1996-1997. The review included
considerable input from community groups, agencies, service providers and clients.
Considerable attention was given to the recommendations of other documents including the
Select Committee's Report on Children's Interests, the Child Welfare League of Canada
Evaluation Report, the Social Policy Advisory Committee Report, the Provincial Strategy
Against Violence, the Classroom Issues Report, and a review of legislation in other
Canadian jurisdictions. Today, I especially want to recognize Judge Gove, who conducted
the Gove Inquiry from British Columbia in 1996. His report has been very helpful, and in
fact we have used many of his recommendations.
The need for new legislation which supports best practise in social
work has been strongly recommended by staff of my department who provide child welfare
services. I am pleased to say that the proposed bill will reflect the recommendations of
social work staff and validate in many ways the work that they have been doing for a
number of years, work, in fact, which has not been recognized or supported through
existing legislation.
The proposed legislation supports Government's intention to move from
remedial approaches to prevention and early intervention strategies with services
delivered by community based agencies. The framework supports an array of responses to
meet the needs of children, youth and families, with the last alternative being removing
the child from his or her family. These services will be provided through regional Health
and Community Services Boards and integrated Health Boards to ensure that accountability
rests closer to families and communities. The current authorities of the Director of Child
Welfare will be given to Directors within each of these regions.
The bill also addresses the identified gap in services to youth aged
sixteen and seventeen. It provides the framework for support to youth and their families,
by voluntary agreement, including residential services where the young person is unable to
remain safely at his home. Families who have children removed from their care can expect a
more timely response from the court system and there are many more opportunities for
involvement in the decisions which affect children.
Further enhancements to existing legislation are found in proposed
provisions which speak to the ability to engage in alternate dispute mechanisms such as
mediation and family group conferencing. This will allow two alternatives to the court
process, which is often seen to be adversarial.
Admittedly, the old Child Welfare Act was not transparent. It was
written in 1944. The proposed legislation recognizes the significant authority and
responsibility government has in protecting the children of this Province. Consequently,
the proposed act supports a number of accountability measures which will assist in
ensuring the interests of our children are protected, including a Provincial Director of
Child Welfare, who will have the responsibility for standards and policy development,
including monitoring and evaluation, and six Regional Directors will be appointed and
report to Regional Boards;
In addition, an arms' length Minister's Advisory Committee comprised of
individuals who have an interest in children's issues, including a lawyer and two persons
who themselves have received child welfare services, will comprise the committee, along
with others.
The role of this Advisory Committee will be to review, within the first
two years, and every two years thereafter, the operation of the proposed legislation and
determine whether the principles and the purpose of the bill are being achieved. The
Advisory Committee's report will then be presented to the House of Assembly.
The proposed legislation also provides for the establishment of Custody
Review Committees within each of our regional Health and Community Services Boards and
Integrated Health Boards, again with the participation of persons who have received child
welfare services. This Committee would review annually all the children for whom
guardianship has been granted on a permanent basis by the courts.
Government is further supporting accountability through the funding of
the Youth in Care Network, the establishment of the Premier's Council on Social
Development and the development of the social audit as intended in the Strategic Social
Plan.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill is complementary to and consistent with our
Strategic Social Plan and is one more positive step in delivering comprehensive,
integrated services to children and their families. The Bill must also be viewed in the
light of the other very significant initiatives within government, particulary the
National Child Benefit, the Model for Service Coordination, and the integration of our
health and community services boards.
These initiatives are reflective of the move to programs and services
which are coordinated and delivered through community-based agencies and have a prevention
and early intervention focus in this new child-centred legislation.
Government continues to be committed to services and programs which are
child centred with a family focus. I would like to thank all individuals and groups who
participated in the development of this significant initiative. This has been a long time
coming, and today is a very special day for all the children of our Province. That is why
today I wear the blue ribbon, because this government believes that every day is National
Child Day.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: I would like thank the minister for providing me
with a copy of her statement, and I would like to compliment her on bringing in this Child
Welfare Act. It is long overdue. However, there are a few issues that I would like to take
with it.
One is: I notice there that social workers were consulted, and that
this bill will reflect the recommendations of the social work staff. I know that last week
sometime, social workers who work at child protection, or who work with children,
demonstrated; and they demonstrated because their caseloads are too great. I would like to
suggest to the minister that as good as this act may be, it is only as good as the paper
it is written on if we don't have the manpower to effect the policies that are contained
in it.
I am pleased to see that the gap in youth between the age of sixteen
and seventeen has been identified. I know there was a problem out there. A child could run
away from home at the age of sixteen and not be picked up by the police, but they could be
arrested for buying cigarettes. I am glad to see that has been addressed.
I am still wondering why we don't have a child's advocate. It was
recommended by the Select Committee on Children's Interests. Instead, the minister seems
to have appointed an advisory committee. As good as that may be, it will only be reporting
to the House of Assembly every two years. I would suggest that in a two-year period, a lot
of our young people will fall through the cracks and continue to fall through the cracks
as they have done so since 1944 and probably since time before then. I have a great
problem with an advisory committee instead of an advocate who would enjoy the same
privileges or the same power as the Auditor General.
Another thing I would like to do is ask the minister: Would she refer
this to the Social Services Committee of the House of Assembly for review?
This act has been a long time in the making, it has been long overdue,
and I think that if it can be put before this committee and reviewed, this time we will
get it right. If we have been waiting for it this long, it will not hurt to wait another
while, while this committee of the House of Assembly reviews it.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does
he have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to see that the work of many years and a lot of people on
the revisions of the Child Welfare Act are now being brought forward. I know that we have
had very serious problems in the child welfare field in this Province, both in
institutional circumstances and individual circumstances. I know a lot of reports and
studies have been done on this, and I hope the conclusion will be reflected in the
legislation that we see.
I do have a very serious problem, though, with the minister's approach
in what appears to be putting child welfare in the responsibility of the health and
community services boards and integrated health boards - she says, to ensure that
accountability rests closer to families and communities.
These are unelected boards. The issue of child welfare is so important
that there ought to be direct accountability to this House through the minister -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: They are not elected. That is what I said; they are
unelected boards.
The responsibility for child welfare ought to begin and end right here
in this House of Assembly with the minister responsible for this department. I do not want
to hear, in two or three years' time when something goes seriously wrong, the finger being
pointed at some board who made decisions or priority decisions that were contrary to what
minister would do if she was in charge, but she cannot tell them.
That is my major criticism so far with what I see here today. I am
concerned that the responsibility for children's interests is being passed on to someone
else and away from this House, and I would not want to see this happen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the March 1998 Budget, government announced a $4 million Awards
Program for Newfoundland and Labrador students attending Memorial University and the
College of the North Atlantic. The Awards Program is a two-year bridging program to the
federal government's Canada Millennium Scholarship Program to help aid student who
demonstrate financial need and academic success criteria.
Today, I am pleased to announce that more than 2,000 students have
received awards ranging from $500 to $1,000 maximum for this school year under the Awards
Program.
To date, government has awarded a total of $1.4 million of the $2
million allocated for the 1998-1999 academic year. Another $2 million will also be
available for the 1999-2000 school year. We also established a committee to administer and
finalize criteria for the program. This committee consists of representatives from
Memorial University, the College of the North Atlantic, along with three student
representatives.
Students agree with the criteria set for the program and feedback has
been overwhelmingly positive. Other jurisdictions, as a matter of fact, are praising
government's initiative and looking at our Awards Program as a model for their own
potential programs.
In this particular process there was no application necessary. The
awards were primarily based on a student's unmet financial need as assessed by the Student
Aid Division, in addition to being in good academic standing at their institution.
Government is helping to create more opportunities for Newfoundland and
Labrador students by increasing the amount of awards available in our own publicly funded
post-secondary institutions. It is ensuring students with academic potential have the
extra necessary resources to obtain a post-secondary education within our Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said in Friday's Question Period, this particular initiative is a
positive one if you are the parent of a son or daughter who is attending a public
institution. However, if you happen to be the parent of a son or daughter who is going to
a private school, a private college, then you will not welcome this particular initiative;
because this initiative, while it is good and we applaud the minister and his government
for making available $2 million, there are more students in private colleges than there
are in the entire system of the College of the North Atlantic. These students have been
excluded. Mr. Minister, why is that? We ask you again to reconsider and make sure that we
remove the barriers to post-secondary education rather than imposing them, even if we do
that by a scholarship program.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does
he have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to be critical of the
minister's statement here today, but I do have to say that we have a long way to go before
we have adequate support for public education in Newfoundland and Labrador. This obviously
provides provide some measure of assistance.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Coast of Bays Corporation,
a Regional Economic Development Board from the Province's South Coast, launched a major
promotional campaign to attract investors to their area. I believe they have already
supplied one to the Leader of the Opposition and at least the critic, the Member for Baie
Verte. This promotional package is another excellent example of the REDB process at work.
The Coast of Bays Corporation has put together a quality package entitled "The
Natural Way to Do Business," and a strategy to bring investors to their area.
This group of volunteers have identified opportunities in their area
and are working to advance the economies of their own particular communities. Another
important thing to remember is that this board is independent of government, a grassroots
organization for people to help encourage economic growth in their own area. It is not
government telling these people what has to be done, it is government listening to the
people who know what they want.
Like other people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the people
involved in the Coast of Bays Corporation are strongly committed to revitalizing the
economy of their area. In the coming weeks they will be aggressively seeking new investors
by targeting companies involved in agriculture, the fishery, cultural industries, tourism,
information technology and aquaculture.
I think those smaller packages are available to everybody right now. I
would like to point out to the Members of the House of Assembly that this is a quality
piece of work that indeed will go a long way to explaining to private investors just what
is available in that region of the South Coast, primarily, I believe, in the district
belonging to the Minister of Environment and Labour.
I understand that some of the participants in this morning's news
conference have had to return home. However, three of the people - Jeff Gillam, a
director, Conrad Collier, information technology facilitator, and Tracey Perry, executive
director of the Coast of Bays Regional Development Corporation - I understand are in the
gallery. Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members to join with me in wishing, through them,
the Coast of Bays Corporation well with their promotional campaign and their economic plan
to expand and diversify the economy of that area of the Province. Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
On this side of the House we join with the minister in complimenting
the people of the South Coast, the people at the grassroots level who put together such a
superb product here, encouraging investment in their communities. As we see around rural
Newfoundland these days, that is exactly what is needed. That is the engine that is going
to drive it, encouraging investors to come into small-town Newfoundland, to start small
businesses, to help us through a transition in this Province's history of the fishery and
so on. It is the people at the grassroots level that are the key to the answer.
I say to the minister we applaud them. That is the route we should be
on. The proof of the pudding is going to going to be that the government can back up their
initiatives, back them up when they attract investors, so that they can finish off, and at
the end of the day we can say there are more jobs through investments like this.
We want to congratulate these people on putting this together. It is a
superb job, and I think that anybody can see they have done their homework well. Hopefully
they will attract new investment to those communities on the South Coast. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does
he have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to join in complimenting the Coast of Bays Corporation on a fine
job of putting together a promotional package for their area. The work in identifying the
special features of your area is very important. As others have said, it is the people at
the local level who know the kind of attractions that are available, the kind of business
opportunities that can work in their region. If only we have the kind of support that is
required at the provincial and federal level, recognition of the important need to assist
these communities in making sure they reach their full potential, then I think we can
really go somewhere. This is a fine example of what local groups can do.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I received calls on Sunday with respect to the situation that occurred
in Davis Inlet over the weekend, allegedly a rampage by the children in Davis Inlet. It
has been reported in the media also that the troubles were again due to solvent and
substance abuse. I would like to ask the Minister of Health and Community Services what
actions she taken to address this ongoing situation.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As early as this morning
my colleague the Member for Torngat Mountains raised the issue with me. We have been in
contact with my officials in the department. We too are quite concerned about what we are
hearing in Davis Inlet. We understand there are a number of outstanding issues. Some very
significant support was put in that community a number of months ago and we will be
looking again to working with the community through our regional board systems and in any
other way we are able to provide support. Because as the member opposite knows, there are
a number of support systems in place for our aboriginal communities, including the federal
government, as well as provincial governments and the local and regional boards.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the minister I know would agree, this is a very serious situation.
In August the Member for Ferryland and critic for health wrote the minister advising her
of information we had with respect to the community. Clearly, I say to the minister, we
have a set of unusual circumstances. Wouldn't the minister agree that unusual
circumstances like these require unusual means of intervention?
I would like to ask the minister: How many social workers do you have
in Davis Inlet to cope with the problems? Or are there any plans to increase the number of
social workers dealing with the situation so that people in the area can be assured that
at least the government is doing whatever it can to curb the situation and to address the
very serious problems that are affecting children in that community?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the issues we are talking about run much deeper than the number
of social workers. I think we would be the first to recognize, as have many other
aboriginal communities right across this country, that the issues we are hearing about run
much deeper. They are part of the community and they have to be addressed from a cultural
as well as from a community perspective.
We have in the past worked very closely with officials from the federal
government and with our own regional board people, not only from the social work
perspective but from the health perspective, the mental health perspective, the teachers
and all the other resource people and those who provide community services, to try to do
an integrated approach to whatever type of service delivery we can give to address this
problem.
As I have mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, we too are quite concerned.
The Member for Torngat Mountains has mentioned it to me. We are trying to pull together
now, with our officials in my department as well as with the board officials, an approach
to try to look at this, to deal with it in a long-term perspective if we can. We know we
will probably have to avail of more resources than we normally would.
As I have said today, without making a prediction or saying that I am
going to do something of which I have not fully been apprised, I want to make sure I have
all of the details and that we are able to get all of the partners. Because we know that
whenever you address an issue which has such a strong and serious cultural base you must
include all components of the community, use a community development approach to problem
solving, if it is to be at all successful.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that when we deal
with substance abuse of any kind, whether it is at the individual level or community
level, solutions lie within the community and individuals themselves. However, I would
like to just reference for the minister again that back in August we wrote the minister
indicating we had information. We wanted to inform her of what information we had.
Also, there are situations that demand intervention. Those in the
business of dealing with substance abuse of any kind will tell you that there are
situations that occur like this and where crisis intervention must take place. I would
like to ask the minister: What discussions have you had with the Band Council of Davis
Inlet, associated federal agencies or others involved in this matter, to find ways to cope
with this very serious problem?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the member opposite knows, when we are dealing with issues with
respect to health and community services we work through our boards to try to find the
best approach to solving an issue which is of such a serious nature as this one.
I will say again that whenever you try to address an issue of this
magnitude you do not work from the outside in, you work from the inside out. You work very
much from a community-based component. You work with all of the parties. As I have said
previously, with my officials in the department, and with resources from our health and
community services boards, in addition to the federal government support - because there
is a significant amount of federal government money and supports that are in a number of
our Aboriginal communities, as you are well aware - we will be working with all of the
parties. We will be following the same premise as we followed. We do not think that this
is an isolated case. We know it is an issue that required extraordinary measures the last
time it was raised to this level.
Again, I am not going to stand up in the House today and make a
commitment to follow any particular course. We will get all of the information that we
need, we will meet with all of the necessary officials and with the people and the
community that we need to meet with, and we will make the best decisions. Because I think,
as we pointed out today at the introduction of our new piece of legislation, our child,
youth and family services act, whatever we do will be child centred, child focused, and in
the best interest of the child; but we have to work within the community and the
structures that are there.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: With the greatest of respect, Minister, we advised
you of a situation that occurred - information that we had early in August. The critic for
health wrote you on the matter. The situation, as you have described yourself, is
extraordinary and needs extraordinary measures. I understand the health boards are
involved, but I say to the minister that you, yourself, become involved.
I would like to ask you this question: Have any of the children of the
community been taken out of the community and sent for treatment elsewhere, or is that an
option that is being considered as was done in a similar circumstance several years ago?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the member knows, whenever possible - and we have been asked
specifically by the Aboriginal community - to keep children within their community for
cultural and community reasons, if at all possible. We have done that whenever possible in
all areas of Labrador, particularly in the Aboriginal communities.
As I have said early, we have not been ignoring the situation. We have
been meeting. We are trying to plan in terms of a long-term solution to some of these very
difficult, challenging, and very disturbing situations that we find our Aboriginal
children in, in some of these communities.
I think it is important to note that the Member for Torngat Mountains,
as I have mentioned earlier, has been very active in working with the communities and I
think, as anyone would acknowledge, the Member of the House of Assembly is a key contact
person and representative of the views and issues of any community. Particularly, I know
that the Member for Torngat Mountain is a very, very conscientious member and has had
numerous meetings with officials from both my department as well as other deputy
ministers.
We have had a intergovernmental committee in place for a long time. I
have been there myself and have met with the officials and discussed a number of other
issues, but whenever you deal with issues of this magnitude, you are never isolated to one
issue. It involves the whole community, the whole gamut of everything from our social
system to our economic base, and all of the issues in between.
Mr. Speaker, we take it very seriously. We have been working with the
Aboriginal leaders. We have also been working with our own deputy ministers in an
intergovernmental, collaborate approach to try to find an integrated collaborative
response to this very serious problem.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, for the record, I want it to be clear that the sincerity or
the actions of the member for that particular district are not in question. The actions or
the sincerity of the member for that particular district are certainly not been questioned
by me. What is at questioned is, because of the ongoing problem, the questions that are
raised to you today as minister, is the department's own response.
I would like to ask you this question. As I see it, we have a community
in crisis, and clearly the parents in the area are unable to deal with the situation.
Clearly, the children are at risk and are in need of protection. Minister, do you believe
that this qualifies, under the definition of the Child Protection Act, and in spirit and
in keeping with your own press conference in terms of the changes that you have suggested
today will focus on prevention and rehabilitation, of a situation where children are in
need of protection? And what new strategies are you considering right now to try to solve
this ongoing problem?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Social Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What we have proposed in this legislation, and in fact what many of our
social workers have been carrying out with the aid of policy as opposed to legislation, is
the full gamut of services. I will say it again, that a child will be removed from the
care of the parents if it is seen to be in the best interest of the child. Whatever we do
with this new proposed legislation is very much based on child-centred, child-focused
care. I am not going to say that the whole group of them are not going to removed from
their families. I would not discuss that here in this environment.
What I would do is, to meet with all of the officials who are working
with this, and the community representatives, and the families and the parents. There are
numerous ways of approaching a situation like this, and have been tried in many Aboriginal
communities. The family conference is another one, where you involve a group of people
much broader than the immediate family, but go out to family members and also key
significant people in the community, who may or may not be related, like teachers or other
types of support systems for the child.
We are willing to look at any number of issues, but I think first of
all I would never group any of the children together. I think it is important to look at
the issues in an individual way, because each child is an individual, with an individual
set of family situations that need to be looked at in that way.
I will say that we are very concerned, and that we will look to try to
resolve this in the best possible way with all of the partners involved, particularly the
family. If they can work with us, definitely; because if a child can stay in a family,
that is what we want to do. If they cannot, and there is evidence that they cannot, and we
are seeing the type of behaviour we have seen, we would certainly would move to apprehend
and remove that child and put the child in a safe environment. We need to work with the
community and the social worker and the people who know the situation best.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the
Minister of Health and Community Services.
In August of 1997, private ambulance operators, upon the minister's
request, voluntarily agreed to open their books and have government auditors come in and
see exactly the serous plight they were in. I might add, that audit has been completed and
has been in your hands since March. It has not been publicly released, but it is evident
that many operators are on the brink of bankruptcy and are in danger of losing an
essential service in areas of this Province unless the proper financial forces are put in
place.
Minister, in August of this year, I raised this issue and indicated
that your department was considering eliminating grants to some of these. The minister
said: Mr. Sullivan is sounding more like an MHA and a health critic fearmonger, I say to
the minister. That is what she indicated.
Well, Minister, shortly after that statement by you, a few weeks later,
I attended a meeting with ambulance operators, with officials of your department, when
your department had signalled out and designated twelve areas in the Province where they
were going to cut grants, I say to you.
The operators at the meeting had to justify why they should provide
this service. I ask the minister now: Will she confirm that she has a report by her
department officials in her hands since last Monday that is reviewing cutting twelve
different grants to ambulance operators across this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In response to the
preamble before the question, I want to say: Yes,
there was a financial audit done. The information contains a lot of very personal
information about a select number of operators. We have decided that would not be released
for that particular reason.
What we did do though, is, in response to trying to deal with the
issue, we did give a commitment to the ambulance operators, particularly the small to
medium private operators, as well as the community service operators, that we would within
sixty days complete a new set of negotiations that would like at the whole range of issues
as they relate to ambulance service operators.
As I said to the CBC in an interview a few days ago, I know the member
opposite has ambulance operators in his district and he is probably trying to advocate on
their behalf. Fine, but the real issue is that this is more than grants. It is about how
we deliver services for the whole Province; it is about looking at why some areas of the
Province use ambulances four to five times more than other areas on an average basis
throughout the Province. It is also about a whole range of issues about how we deliver
services through the Public Utilities Board, how those ambulances are called, how they
work closely with the community.
Grants are one part of it, that is true, but the services are also a
big part of it, as well as everything else that can affect ambulance services for the
people of this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: Why are you selective in the areas that you are
selecting to do a review? Why Hickman's Harbour, Trepassey, Bell Island, Forteau,
Cappahayden, Port aux Basques, Norris Point, St. Bride's, Ferryland, Clarenville and
Heart's Delight?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: I get calls from ambulance operators in the districts
of members on that side of the House, with the same concerns. I ask the minister: Why are
you further downgrading services to twelve rural Newfoundland areas when many of these
areas now have no hospitals and no medical facilities. One of these areas, namely
Trepassey, is further by road to a hospital in this Province than any other community on
this Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will say to the member - and I will ask you a question - don't you
think you should wait until the results of the report come out before you start guessing
the outcome of the report?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Really, Mr. Speaker, I know there is a real
urgency to fearmonger about service reductions and everything else, but I do urge the
member opposite to at least wait until the report is released and the decisions are made.
Then make your statements.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
History has shown that it is much better to get the result you want
when you raise it before you make the decision, I say to the minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: History has shown that.
AN HON. MEMBER: Especially with this government.
MR. SULLIVAN: Especially with that minister.
I have a copy of a report here, Minister, by your department that
identified over $228,000 inefficiencies alone in one particular area - in Corner Brook in
this Province. Why are you ignoring this area, Minister, and instead crucifying operators
that are critical to the health and wellbeing of rural Newfoundlanders - an area, by the
way, that now has a shortage of eighty medical doctors in the Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, let me say it again, and I will say
it slower this time: I have not made a decision on the report as of yet. Yes, the report
came in last Monday, but in case you have not been noticing, we have been rather busy in
my department working on a lot of other issues and -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: - and while I want to admit, and have it very
clearly for the record, ambulance services are a very important issue for the people of
this Province. I have to say, we want to give it the full attention it deserves. We have
given that commitment to the ambulance operators, and I urge the member to wait to panic
until after the results of the report are made known.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister, if it is so urgent not to panic, why do you have in
your department a copy of a report dated in 1991 showing inefficiencies in the system in
this Province to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars, and you are turning around
and crucifying thirteen areas, thirteen operations in twelve areas of our Province? I ask
the minister: Why are you waiting seven years, if it is so important? Why are you not
addressing it now?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have been in this portfolio for a
year-and-a-half and I am quite pleased with the outcomes and the measurements that we have
been able to put forward on behalf of this department.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Now, Mr. Speaker, there is lots of work to be
done. I can say, if it took over fifty-four years to change the child welfare legislation
- a long time with both parties in place - I think that we will say very clearly that we
see this as a very important issue and we will attend to it as quickly as we can.
As we have heard here today, every day the issue in Davis Inlet is a
very important issue. The ambulance issue is a very important issue. Our child welfare
system is a very important issue, and we will deal with the issues in a timely way, in the
best way we can, and we will incorporate all of the information we have. We have given
that commitment to the ambulance operators and we will stick to it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the
Minister of Education and they concern the post-secondary Awards Program.
I wanted to ask the minister: Why has the minister decided that he
would limit the access to the Awards Program to students who attend public colleges -
namely Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic? Why have you adopted a
double standard of eligibility?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I acknowledge that when I made the Ministerial Statement earlier that
the education critic for the Opposition did praise the initiative and is glad that we do
have some $4 million put aside to assist students with their indebtedness.
Mr. Speaker, if he looked back to the commentary and the comments that
were made during the Budget Debate last year - because he did participate in it quite
actively; maybe he has forgotten what he said -, in fact the whole debate ranged around
the fact that in Newfoundland and Labrador this government had found a way in the Budget
to put in place an interim measure which would bridge students in Newfoundland and
Labrador to the point in time when they could hope to take advantage of the Canada
Millennium Scholarships. Basically, I am pleased to indicate, the federal government, and
the group which is looking at the Canada Millennium Scholarships, are looking at the
criteria and the model we used to disperse $1.2 million so far this year as being the
national model they might very well use.
The whole notion is that we wanted to do something that would bridge
the gap. We wanted to do something on a number of fronts, including student loans, that
would be harmonized with how it is being dealt with in the rest of the country. One of the
criteria, front and centre, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Canada Millennium Scholarship
- this is just a mechanism to bridge us to that period of time, with some money from the
provincial treasury - is that the Canada Millennium Scholarship, right across the country,
is going to be available to students in publicly funded institutions.
Rather than try to have a different criteria in Newfoundland and
Labrador, we checked with the students, we checked with the student representatives, we
checked as well with the University, the college, recognized that people in the private
institutions would also like to have some assistance, but in order for meaningful
assistance to occur for the students we felt it had to be restricted to the publicly
funded institutions, the same as the national program will be in a year's time.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister will know that the National Scholarship Foundation - which
administers the Millennium Fund, following from Bill C-36 in the federal Parliament - has
not specifically excluded private colleges. In fact, they have recently agreed to appoint
one of the members from the private colleges to the table to have discussions about
expanding that particular program, make it available to private colleges. The minister is
not quite correct, because his information, if that is what he has, is not up to date.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister another question. There are two
criteria that are mentioned. One is need and the other one is academic achievement. Why
have you agreed to add a third criteria, which is source of operating funds?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe in his third question he will elaborate further on what that
means, because I don't know what he is getting at yet. I will wait and find out I guess in
the next question.
Contrary to what the hon. member is saying, we indicated as well during
the Budget Debate last year that if and when the federal program becomes available to
students who are in privately funded institutions, in the private training sector, we
would certainly then look at adjusting the criteria in Newfoundland and Labrador. There
has absolutely been no decision taken at this point in time to include private training
institutions for eligibility under the Canada Millennium Scholarship. We are consistent in
terms of, at this point in time, being harmonized with the federal program.
We have indicated - and we have had the discussion with the students
and with the committee that set up the criteria in our Province - that if it comes to
that, if the federal program is extended to include application, and to apply to students
who are in the private training institutions, at that point in time we would gladly look
at revisiting the criteria in Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford
Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister will know there are 7,000 students in Newfoundland and
Labrador who are taking their post-secondary education at a private college school. I
checked with the Association of Private Colleges and they tell me that they are prepared
today to enter into a dialogue with the minister that will assure that a fair and
transparent methodology can be arranged, which will make sure that their students can
participate in the eligibility criteria, and that they can design a process that will be
as fair and reasonable and would be commensurate with that which is used in the public
college system.
Following what is being done nationally, because I have correspondence
here from other provinces whereby there is dialogue occurring nationally, I ask the
minister: Will he in Newfoundland and Labrador today contact and negotiate with the
Association of Private Colleges so that we in Newfoundland and Labrador can make sure that
the students in private colleges have an equal opportunity to participate in this
particular program?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It might be useful to point out one thing that the hon. member ignores
in the discussion and the questions. The awards program in Newfoundland and Labrador and
the Canada Millennium Scholarship program are both intended to deal with the issue of
indebtedness. What he misses is this fine point, that in our private training
institutions, while tuitions are higher because there is no subsidy from the public purse,
the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the courses are a semester, a year,
two years maximum,
whereas in the publicly funded college and in the University the
programs are three, four or five years' duration.
The real indebtedness at the end of the piece in Newfoundland and
Labrador, and across the country, accrues to those students who are in school for a longer
period of time taking three-year technology programs, taking four- and five-year degree
programs, which are not offered in the private schools. As a matter of fact, 70 per cent
of the students in private schools take a course which is of one year duration or less. So
while they have high tuition in the year, they do not accrue anywhere close to the debt
through a student loan system that students do who are in a four- or five-year university
program, or a three-year technology program in the public college.
Mr. Speaker, the main criteria of the program is to relieve
indebtedness. While tuition fees on a semester basis or a yearly basis are higher in the
private training institutions, the statistics do not show that students who have only gone
to private training institutions have higher debt loads than students who are in the
public college or the University.
MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford
Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister will know that the student debt load in private colleges
can be just as high. For example, some of the programs that were offered by the Career
Academy had debt loads of well over $30,000 and $40,000. I say to the minister that some
of the tuition can be six times as high in private colleges as in the public colleges.
I want to ask the minister: Is he not at all concerned with the message
he is sending here, a very discriminatory message that he is sending to the private
college system in Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, maybe I will just cover some of the same
ground again. The fact of the matter is that when the hon. member refers to extremely high
debt loads - and we have heard some of that in public commentary during the summer. There
were students, for example when the Career Academy closed, who were quoted on television
as saying they had debt loads in excess of $30,000. When I met with that student
individually, the reality was that the student had spent four years in university, had not
gotten a job; had spent another two years in the College of the North Atlantic and not
gotten a job; and had then gone to the Career Academy to do a one-year course. Yes, there
was $30,000 worth of debt, but it was accrued because of the fact that the person had
spent six years in publicly funded institutions prior to going to the private training
institution that was the Career Academy at that time.
Again, Mr. Speaker, as we said last year when we announced the program,
because we want to have meaningful debt relief for students - and this was the criteria
that the students themselves agreed upon -, rather then have a program where somebody
might get a cheque a week ago for $20, $10, $18, the minimum aware is $500.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. GRIMES: The maximum is $1,000. We have helped 2,000 students.
If the federal criteria are to change through a process they are now going through, we
would gladly then look at that process in Newfoundland and Labrador. We see no need to
convene a discussion in Newfoundland and Labrador that is already being held at the
national level as to whether or not private training institutions will be included.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.
Question period has ended.
Presenting Reports by
Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I rise in my place to present the report of the Public Accounts
Committee of the House of Assembly, dated November 1998.
I will make just a few comments.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!
MR. J. BYRNE: Table the report. I have to thank a few people and
stuff like that. There are government members on this, you know.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has been customary here
when reports are filed on children's interest and other things to make some
acknowledgements of people there. Certainly I am sure the Government House Leader
shouldn't feel too mean-spirited today not to have a brief comment.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman that I
do not mind, but when I hear a member standing and saying: I am going to make a few
telling comments about this report, then that is totally outside of recognizing who is
involved in the report or who is not. The hon. gentleman should just table the report as
the routine Orders of the Day call for.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis tabling a report on the -
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to correct the hon.
Government House Leader. He said I made a statement that I would say a few telling
comments. All I said was I wanted to make a few comments with respect to recognizing
certain people who are involved in this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. J. BYRNE: That is what I said! Hansard will check it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. J. BYRNE: I never said telling comments. I did not.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Is the hon. member tabling the report?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: I would like to, again, table the report of the
Public Accounts Committee of the House of Assembly for November 1998. I would like to
thank, if I was permitted, the members of the Committee. Would that be acceptable, Mr.
Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. Here it is. There is the report. Let me say
this, Mr. Speaker. The members on that side of the House must be frightened to death,
because every time I stand in this House of Assembly the Government House Leader is on the
attack, like an attack dog.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to table the 1998 annual report of the Newfoundland Liquor
Corporation. I have not telling comments to make.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce
the following private member's resolution:
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has initiated a
planned approach to focus on the key areas of social and economic development in the
Province; and
WHEREAS government in consultation with economic development partners
throughout the Province has established Regional Economic Development Boards in twenty
economic zones throughout Newfoundland and Labrador; and
WHEREAS the Regional Economic Development Boards are grassroots
organizations within both urban and rural centres in the Province which are implementing
strategic economic plans for their region based on local and provincial consultations; and
WHEREAS the Premier's Council on social development has been
established to oversee the implementation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Strategic
Social Plan; and
WHEREAS the Strategic Social Plan has evolved out of one of the most
thorough and far-reaching consultations on a social strategy ever undertaken in
Newfoundland and Labrador; and
WHEREAS the Strategic Social Plan and strategic regional economic plans
of the Regional Economic Development Boards are a cornerstone of the path chosen by the
people of the regions of our Province for our future social and economic development;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED this House go on record as supporting and
encouraging the Regional Economic Development Boards in the implementation of their
strategic plans and the many hard-working grassroots volunteers to continue their
excellent work on behalf of the people of the Province; and
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED this House support and encourage the
continued linkages and working relationships between the social and economic development
sectors of the provincial strategies for economic renewal and social responsiveness.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition on behalf of constituents of mine
in the District of St. John's East. I would just like to read the petition for the Members
of the House.
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session
convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Chalker Place in the electorial
District of St. John's East:
WHEREAS the housing units at Chalker Place are owned by the
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; and
WHEREAS many of these units are in desperate need of repair; and
WHEREAS the tenants have been waiting now for some time to have these
repairs carried out;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to give serious consideration to ensuring that the tenants' concerns are resolved
in a satisfactory manner.
As part of this petition, Mr. Speaker, there are some sixty-five or
seventy names of residents of Chalker Place in the electorial District of St. John's East.
This particular part of the district is essentially units that are owned by Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing, and the residents of Chalker Place are simply tenants of
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.
I have met and spoken with numerous residents in the area who
repeatedly talk about the frustrations they are experiencing in having many of the
problems with respect to their rental units rectified, and the work, hopefully, to be
carried out by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. These residents have tried over and over
again for a significant period of time to have their problems resolved. For example, there
are problems with roofing, problems with windows, problems with siding. There are
approximately 100 units in Chalker Place. These are individuals who are simply frustrated
beyond no end in terms of their attempts to have this particular issue dealt with.
There are, as I have indicated, approximately one hundred units. We
have a lot of single-parent families. We have people who need assistance and recognition
by the minister responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and by officials of
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing itself. When there are approximately one hundred units,
and we have close to seventy signatures from individuals who live on Chalker Place, I
think that number essentially speaks for itself.
This is an issue of major concern. These individuals have tried on
numerous occasions to have this issue resolved. We are talking about fundamental issues.
We are talking about a housing requirement, we are talking about leaky windows, we are
talking about leaking roofs, we are talking about, essentially, the day to day comfort of
day to day living which unfortunately is not being adhered to and given any sort of
reasonable response or recognition by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.
I would therefore call upon the minister responsible for housing in
this government, namely the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, responsible for
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, to listen carefully to what these residents are saying,
and to hopefully take to heart the many complaints, the many problems, which are being
experienced, and in a very genuine way have his officials go to Chalker Place to meet with
the residents of Chalker Place with a very serious intent of rectifying their concerns.
This is a petition which is done in good faith on behalf of these
individuals. These residents need help, these residents need assistance, these residents
need attention from the minister responsible, with the view of having these particular
housing needs addressed and these particular problems rectified. It may to many people
seem unimportant, but believe me, to the residents of Chalker Place this is first and
foremost. They require attention from the minister and it is genuinely hoped, with the
help of this petition, that their needs and concerns will be addressed. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very familiar with the Chalker Place housing development, having
represented that area as a Member of Parliament, and have often been down there. The YMCA
is next to it. I want to support wholeheartedly the petition of the Member for St. John's
East.
It is very unfortunate, and perhaps telling, that these individuals
have to come and petition this House of Assembly in order to get basic repairs done to
public housing. This is clearly a basic right. That particular area seems to have been
neglected by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing when it comes to refurbishing these units.
We have seen in other areas of St. John's, and I am sure in other areas
of the Province but I will refer to a couple in St. John's - Buckmasters Circle has
received a very excellent facelift at least, and I know the interiors were done as well.
The whole area of Buckmasters Circle was redone several years ago, a very commendable job
by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. They upgraded the area, upgraded the look of the
area, upgraded the atmosphere of the area and, I am sure, improved the quality of life for
the tenants in the process, and also enabled people to have great pride in their living
accommodations, which obviously has great other effects as well.
We have also seen it on Anderson Avenue. That whole area was upgraded a
number of years ago. Livingstone Street, in the last year or so, was upgraded by
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. But this area seems to have been neglected, and I am
sorry that the minister is not here to respond to it today because it is something that
needs to be brought to his attention, and through this petition I hope it will. The kinds
of problems that the Member for St. John's East has been talking about are fairly basic.
We are talking about inadequate roofing; we are talking about windows that need to be
replaced; we are talking about the general state of repair of these dwellings that casts a
pall over the living arrangements that people have over their family life, over their
whole self-respect, to be living in an accommodation that is visibly unsuitable and
obviously unsuitable for living as well.
I want to support wholeheartedly the comments of the Member for St.
John's East and the prayer of the petitioners to get some definite action undertaken by
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, to refurbish that whole area of apartments. That area
has improved considerably in the last little while. The housing that was owned by the
Department of Defence has recently been turned into condominiums that all have been
repaired. Upgrades have taken place around that neighbourhood.
Across the street on Kenna's Hill, another apartment building,
privately owned, has been upgraded and made more attractive. We now have, in the middle of
that, the Chalker Place public housing which, I am sure, must make the lives of those
living there saddened; to go in every day to this public housing area and see the housing
that is provided by the public for people who cannot find adequate housing in the private
sector, that housing treated as second-, third- and fourth-rate accommodations by virtue
of the fact that they have been neglected in the basis way by Newfoundland and Labrador
Housing.
I would urge the House to support the resolution, and I would urge the
minister to announce very quickly a date for the start of the renovations and refurbishing
of the Chalker Place apartments.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: I would also like to speak to the petition, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member has asked for leave. Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MS S. OSBORNE: I get calls all the time from people who live in
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. One of the common threads is that these people are very
vulnerable. If they were renting privately, they could go to their landlord and say: I
need the repairs done, and the landlord would execute the repairs because he would be
threatened probably with losing the tenant. However, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
know that they are in charge here, and these people are living in homes where there are
leaky roofs, leaky windows, and where the gyproc gets mouldy. Children are living in rooms
where there is mould growing on the walls, and these people are at the mercy of
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. They have no place else to go.
As a matter of fact, a couple of months ago in one of the areas in St.
John's Centre, the houses were so bad and the people had complained so much, and there was
no action, that eventually the conditions in which this government lets our people exist -
not live but exist - became evident on the front page of The Telegram . There were
pictures there of staircases falling in, of mould on the walls. This problem is not just
in Chalker Place. This problem is throughout the city in many of the Newfoundland and
Labrador Housing units.
There was one area of the city where they were having trouble with
their eavestrough; the eavestrough was leaking. They called Newfoundland Labrador and
Housing and asked to have it repaired. They removed the eavestrough and now water is
running down on the
steps and accumulating. Actually, it is posing quite a danger.
There was a mailman making a delivery, or dropping off the mail one day
last week, and there was a bit of frost buildup there. He slipped. I checked and found out
that if he falls, the person living in the house is the one responsible should anything
happen to him. I would like to suggest that it is the owner who has caused the danger by
not having the repairs effected properly who would be responsible, and this government
might very well find itself in court.
More importantly than that, we have our children; children who are
living in damp bedrooms because the windows are leaking, because there is mould. Actually,
the gyproc has gotten soft with the leaks and there is mould there.
I know it is a policy of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, when
somebody has been selected for a unit and they want to go visit the unit, they are not
allowed to visit the unit until the painting has been done. I determined, from dealing
with so many of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, that actually what
happens is that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing goes in and paints over the mould.
As the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, said: It is too bad the
minister is not here to hear these complaints, as I am sure he receives every day in his
office, as I do in mine, complaints about how this government allows our people to exist.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to present a
petition. The petition reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session
convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;
WHEREAS we feel the priorities being followed by HRDC for the hiring of
applicants on term job creation projects are morally wrong and unfair; and
WHEREAS we believe that Priority 1 should be given to former TAGS
clients who are unemployed and have little or no income; and
WHEREAS we further believe that whether or not an individual received
EI in the past three years should have absolutely no bearing on a person's placement on a
priority list;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and
to direct their HRDC offices to give first priority in hiring for term job creation
projects to former TAG clients who are unemployed, and to disregard whether the applicant
has received EI in the past three years.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I brought this to the attention of the Government House
Leader just last Friday. He had indicated at that time that he will bringing it forward to
his cousins up in Ottawa to bring about those changes.
MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I did not indicate that I would bring it to
any cousins in Ottawa. I have no cousins in Ottawa. I don't even have a brother or a
sister.
What I did say to the hon. gentlemen was that I would bring it to the
attention of the Regional Director of HRDC, and I did that for him this morning.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I think the only way to change this, I
say to the minister, is probably to bring it to Ottawa's attention. I have already met
with the HRDC offices, both here in St. John's and also in Clarenville, and it seems that
they are very reluctant to make any changes.
In fact, Minister, what you will find is that most HRDC offices have a
completely different set of rules and regulations. That is what has people disappointed
and upset and discouraged, if you would, because they see no similarities in where people
put the priorities for hiring on those post-TAGS programs. If you are receiving EI
benefits whatsoever, you are in the lowest priority on the totem pole.
I had one person come to me just a couple of weeks ago who indicated
that they were getting $9 a week, I say to the minister, $9 a week in unemployment
insurance, and because they were making that $9 a week they are now disentitled to go to
work on one of those projects unless almost everybody else in the community has gone to
work first. This does not put them at a very good advantage.
I remember the manager of the HRDC office saying to me: Well, where do
we draw the line? If it is $1 or $10, where do we draw the line? Mr. Speaker, it is very
easy to know where you draw the line - if you want to draw a line that is - look at what
the person would normally get if they were fortunate enough to have gotten a job on one of
those projects. It pays $8 per hour for unskilled labour and it pays I think $11 per hour
for a foreman's position. Find out what they get, figure out their 55 per cent
unemployment insurance, and that is where you can draw the line. At least they would be no
worse off than somebody who was fortunate enough to get a job.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should be encouraging people to go to work and
offer them some incentive instead of discouraging them and almost discriminating against
them because they had the initiative to go out and look for a job and find work three
years ago. What people made three years ago on some of those community jobs is certainly
of no benefit for them to put bread and butter on the table today. Those people are
concerned because of the very program that was put in place to help them, provide them
with an income so they could support their families over the coming winter months, now
find themselves at the lower end of the priority list and unable to access one of those
positions that is brought forward by this post-TAGS funding.
Mr. Speaker, they are not looking to get leverage over anybody else.
All they are asking for is that they be considered in one of the higher priorities so they
can get a job since they do not have any income. They should not be discriminated against
for having the initiative, for getting up in the morning and finding a job. In some cases,
like I said, that happened three years ago.
I ask the minister if he would bring it to the attention of the Human
Resource Development office in Ottawa. There is no point in taking it to the manager of
any of the HRDC offices. That has all been tried. That has all been done earlier, and
there have been absolutely no changes brought about. I ask him to take it to the minister
in Ottawa to try to bring about those changes; and when the changes are brought about,
have a clear set of priorities, have a clear set of rules, so that all HRD offices here in
Newfoundland might go forward with the same set of priorities, and what somebody in Gander
would qualify for -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. members's time is up.
MR. H. HODDER: - that somebody in Bonavista and somebody in Port de
Grave could qualify with the same rules and regulations.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to stand and support my colleague in this particular
petition. I am telling you, a lot of people in this Province care. If the minister and all
members, especially in the rural parts of Newfoundland, are out there now getting the same
calls that I am getting about people in the communities fighting among themselves,
community fighting community -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: They do not all have jobs. As a matter of fact, since
the minister raised this, so did his political cousin in Ottawa. You talk about getting
them all jobs, Mr. George Baker - I don't mind saying it because it was said publicly at a
meeting in Little Bay Islands when he slammed his fist on the table back in July month and
said: There will be a job for every single person in this community, I can bet you that.
MR. J. BYRNE: Who said that?
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. George Baker. That is where it all started, and
that is where the inconsistencies started. That is when all these projects were coming.
They were going to save everybody. Everybody was going to get on. Don't worry about
criteria, they were told.
Mr. Speaker, the truth is, what is happening today is we have the MPs
blaming the bureaucrats, the bureaucrats blaming the MPs, and back and forth it goes;
front page stories in local papers, MPs attacking the bureaucrats. As long as they don't
touch it, it has nothing to do with them. They are only in the government. It is not us.
They are only MPs who are sitting on these boards, who have the input with their
colleagues. Unless, maybe the MPs don't talk to their Cabinet ministers. Maybe they are
not allowed in the same room.
The bottom line is that people around communities yesterday, today and
will be again tomorrow, are phoning and complaining about people who are on the project;
people who cannot get on the project; the criteria is different in one community as
opposed to the criteria in another community. Every now and then when they phone their MP
and get a call through, they say: No, it is the HRDC office. Then you phone the HRDC
office and they tell you: Phone your MP. Back and forth it goes. People's lives are like a
ping-pong ball, back and forth. Back and forth it goes. The bottom line is that people are
looking at this as short term, which it is, Mr. Speaker. It is short term, it is make-work
projects. You can phrase it anyway you want, FRAM projects, short term, and people are
scrambling to get those few weeks on.
In the criteria, as my colleague spoke about, imagine somebody with $9
a week unemployment, $50 a week. I have seen three or four of those already in my own
district. Because they are getting $50 a week unemployment, because they went out and
tried to better themselves, the bureaucrats or the MPs, whoever you want to blame it on,
are telling them: That was a bad thing to do, you shouldn't have done anything, you should
have stayed home and done absolutely nothing. We would have awarded you then.
They are the most ridiculous criteria. At the end of the day, whoever's
lap it falls in, it is so stupid - there is not another word that can be used. Somebody
sat down with this type of criteria and tried to use a bit of logic. Logic must have gone
out the window, whoever wrote up these criteria, because it does not fit the situation
people in rural Newfoundland find themselves in today. It is a real shame they have got to
get into a ping pong match back and forth with who is to blame.
The bottom line is that people should be able to go to work if they
want to go to work on these projects. Hopefully they are projects that are going to be
worthwhile and useful. Some of them are very questionable, there is no doubt about that.
It seems as though all of a sudden there were no projects in place, and then there was the
big mad rush because the pressure started, when the protests started on the Northern
Peninsula and so on. Then they started to squeeze them all through as quick as they could.
Now we have a bottleneck effect. All the projects are going to be pushed on at the one
time: Let's get this handful on, let's get on the fellows that are doing the most
complaining. Any of those groups making all the noise in the media, make sure they get on.
That is what has been going on. It is a sad state. Really, it is crisis
management, that is the best example of it, where they try to squeeze everybody in, shut
them up as quick as they could, get them on a project, get them to work so they would not
say anything else.
It was the same thing with the mobility assistance situation just a
little while ago. Everything is in a rush. What happened is this. Back when we did our all
party committee to Ottawa you could see the attitude of the federal bureaucrats at the
time and the people in Ottawa. What are you coming for now? A last dose of something.
Let's throw a few more dollars at them, pave it over, and they are saying to our
provincial government: Here is your load of cash, the one-term effect, take it and use it
the best way you can. We do not care if it is a good project or if it makes sense or if it
is something that is worth while. We do not care if it is logical. We just want to put a
lot of cash over the front face of it so it looks good. That is the problem with all of
this. It is a big one-shot deal that is supposed to keep everybody quiet. The big question
is: What happens down the road?
The Member for Torngat Mountains, when he gave his great speech when we
were in Ottawa to the MPs there at the time and all the other members of the committee, he
told it just like it is. You ask the Member for Torngat Mountains: Did that fall on deaf
ears? Did they really listen to the circumstances? It was all futile. They just went up
and went through the motions. Everybody nodded their head, very polite, go through the
whole mess. Of course, when we walked into Liberal Caucus Room and we found there was more
of us on the committee than there were people actually listening to our concerns, that
said enough for me.
Really, what we are seeing here, Mr. Speaker, is the last shot -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: - cash flow, get them off their back and get them to
sit down and be quiet. It is not going to work. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to present a petition now on behalf of the people of
Labrador West.
To the Honourable House of Assembly:
WHEREAS we the residents of Labrador City condemn the provincial
government in supporting the Iron Ore Company of Canada's decision to process Labrador
resources in Sept-Iles, Quebec;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to reverse this decision immediately and support a policy of second-hand
processing within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, people think this issue has gone away but the truth is it
hasn't. You talk to people, especially in the Labrador West region, or when I went back to
my district this weekend and talked to people in the mining industry that remember what it
is like, and remember that same old argument we have in this Province.
A lot of people in this Province are confused with what they see in the
messages sent out by government. One day they are taking on Inco with their fists folded
and they are going to take them on no matter how big they are, and the next day they are
saying to IOC: Go ahead, fill up the trains with the iron ore, take it all out again, it
is not a problem. It is an inconsistent message. It is a message I got from people at the
CIM down here a couple of weekends ago when they said: We do not know where the Premier is
going to come from, it is going to depend on his mood. If you come into the Premier in a
good mood and you are in cahoots with the Premier and everything is going smoothly, it
should not be a problem. Depending on where you are going to, if you take on the Premier
and get his back up, look out, it could be a whole different situation.
That is why even with the Mineral Act now, and changes that are going
to come on - there is nobody in this Province who argues we shouldn't keep our resources
and get the most benefits for our resources. There is nobody who is going to argue that.
The people of Labrador West are reflective of what is happening in this Province when it
comes to our resources. What has really happened in Labrador West is it has come to a
head. They finally said: Here is a company with thirty-eight years in this Province of
pelletizing ore in this Province. Not doing something new. They are not asking them to do
something new here, they are asking them to continue a primary process that has been there
for thirty-eight years. The people that still have not read Cain's Legacy should
read it, especially that particular thing that thirty-eight years ago that same argument
was put before the then-Premier of the Province when IOC said to the government of the
day: We have full intentions of mining the iron ore in Labrador West, but our intention is
to pelletize in Sept-Iles, Quebec.
In a ten-minute meeting with the premier of the day, Joseph R.
Smallwood, he looked at these people and said - I almost have paraphrased, I almost have
it verbatim, but paraphrased he basically said: Yes, that is a company decision. We do not
have anything in the legislation of the day that would stop you from putting that pellet
plant in Sept-Iles, Quebec. Which is the same situation that you have today. The premier
of the day looked at those people and said: Yes, you can put it there, but as the Premier
of this Province I will use whatever I can to make your lives miserable if you make that
decision.
Within ten minutes of ending that meeting the IOC decision was: Okay,
we will put the pellet plant in Labrador City. That is why you see a pellet plant there
today. You have to start questioning yourself. What really happened here. Was Labrador
West used as a pawn in a bigger game the Premier is in? Were they used as scapegoats in a
bigger charade that is going on between the Premier and his national agenda? Is that the
real truth?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: Before, the history books were right, Mr. Speaker, and
there is a lot of this going over the heads of a lot of members in this House of Assembly.
What is really taking place is that the Premier of this Province is playing games with the
people of Labrador West. He is saying: They will not kick up too much of a stink. We do
not care that the member locally might be in a bit of trouble, we do not care that they
had a motorcade in Labrador City. There were no cameras around, nobody noticed that. Don't
worry about it. Because, you see, the problem is the Premier - this would have been an
announcement to go up and say: We are going to expand the pellet plant in Labrador City
and get fifty jobs. That was not big enough. That was not a million dollars he was going
to spend on a press conference like he had in the Churchill Falls announcement. That is
not big enough for the Premier. No, that is not big enough.
If he had a big announcement that there were going to be 1,000 new jobs
and we were going to do secondary processing, and this big company was on side, you would
see the Premier up there. Everybody in Labrador West asked. Then the Premier said: No,
there is a big expansion in Labrador West, $650 million and so on. They were going to do
that anyway. Everybody asked the same question. They asked us, they said: Premier Bouchard
is down in Sept-Iles, Quebec, today making an announcement on a pellet plant in Sept-Iles,
Quebec, and bragging and gloating about the ore coming out of Labrador City. They said:
How come the Premier is not in Labrador West today to give us this great news? If it is
such good news, do you think that the Premier of this Province, the man who loves the
flashbulbs and the lights from the cameras, do you think he would have been here? Yes, he
would have been in Labrador West if the announcement was so great.
The truth is, and the history books will prove it, Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: - that Labrador West was led down the garden path, and
the people will not forget it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to support the petition of the Member for Baie Verte, and
support the people of Labrador West. This is not about fifty jobs in Labrador West, this
is about the future of Labrador City.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: I would say to the Government House Leader, the people
of Labrador West have their future invested in the Iron Ore Company of Canada, and their
families' future, and the future of their children. That is dependent upon the future of
the Iron Ore Company of Canada in Labrador West. It is not fifty jobs, it is the future of
that part of Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, not only that, the future of mineral
policy and development policy in this Province is at stake.
One of the interesting things is this. There is a lot of talk from the
other side of this House about whether or not there is any commitment to Labrador West
from the Iron Ore Company of Canada. The people who are directly involved, the unions who
sat down with the company, the Chamber of Commerce, the leadership at the municipal level
in Labrador City and Wabush, all were unable to get any commitment from the Iron Ore
Company of Canada. They refused to give a commitment that if there was a downturn and if
one pellet plant had to close, that pellet plant would not be Labrador City, that they
would close down the operations in Sept-Iles before they closed down Labrador City.
They did not get assurance. The company refused to give that assurance.
They refused to give that assurance to the people of Labrador West, to the unions
involved. I understand the Premier said that he had verbal assurances from the company
that they would not treat the pellet plant in Labrador City in that manner, but the verbal
assurances that are second-hand from the Premier are not worth anything if the company is
not prepared to put it in writing a statement of policy, put in writing a commitment to
the unions with which they sign their collective agreements, and to provide that kind of
assurance. The fact they are unwilling to do that certainly indicates to me that the
future of Labrador West is on shaky ground as a result of this decision.
This company, North Limited, will have, if they open up this pellet
plant in Sept-Iles, an operation that they can use for Labrador West pellets, for pellets
from other operations they have around the world, and can build and develop and keep that
plant going, whether the pellet plant in Labrador West continues or not. What this
government has done is adopt a policy which is going to spell the downgrading of Labrador
West and its importance, and shows a lack of commitment to the maximum amount of
development that is feasible and possible within Newfoundland and Labrador.
I do not have much faith in a statement by a company like Iron Ore
Company of Canada that says they have no current plants to close the pellet plant in
Labrador West. Of course, they have no current plans to close the plant in Labrador West.
They are making money on it. It is a profitable, feasible plant that makes money for the
Iron Ore Company of Canada. They do not, of course, have any current plans to close it.
That does not give me any confidence if some time down the road they have to make a choice
between Labrador West and Sept-Iles and they are not prepared to make any commitment that
Labrador West will have first priority.
What has really happened here is that the government and the government
party and the government member lulled the local people in Labrador West into a false
sense of security.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: When the time came, they were not able to back up. They
were not able to back up their rash comments with action and have treated them
differently. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to make a couple of brief comments with respect to the petition
presented. I just wanted to point out that the hon. Member for Baie Verte, who continues
every time the issue is raised to refer to Cain's Legacy and the strong stand taken
by the premier of the day, that I did not know he was such a fan of Premier Smallwood.
Obviously he is, and it is nice to see him praising up the premier for the stand of that
day.
He conveniently forgets or doesn't bother to mention the difference
between taking that stand, which is very similar to what the government is doing now with
Voisey's Bay, in an area where it was virgin territory, where there was no community,
where there was no development, where nothing had ever started, versus going in now to a
company that has a forty-year track record of successful operation in which one of the
finished products has always been concentrate. For him to suggest that this is a parallel
to the statements that are referred to and in the record of history in Cain's Legacy
is very misleading.
Then members like the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi always bring up
this issue: They might close down the pellet plant in Labrador City and keep the one open
in Sept-Iles, as if anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador would ever let that happen. That
is when it would be clear that first and foremost, as today, the workers in Labrador City
would not let that happen because they would not go to work in the mine. The town council
would not let it happen because they would bar the place up. The Chamber of Commerce would
shut it down. They would not need any action in this Legislature, because everybody over
there, just like everybody in Labrador West, knows that if anyone were to ever try to do
that kind of thing, five, ten or fifteen years down the road, that it would not happen. It
could not possibly happen.
So it is not a matter if they are downgrading things at IOC or that
there is a risk for the operation at Labrador West. It is rhetoric that bears no fact. It
is not even remotely possible, because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and those
in Labrador West itself, would never let it happen.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there is a mixed message because I guess
between the Opposition, different members, they do not know for sure what their stand
would be if they were the government. They do talk alternatively about either leaving it
in the ground, which means you send no concentrate out of IOC - which means it is kind of
hard to send it out of Wabush, so you shut down Wabush too - or else, give them the money
because we have heard the fact: Never mind how much the difference in cost, just give them
the cash and ask the question.
I know exactly how it is being played out in the streets in common
language. The Opposition has suggested two choices: leave it in the ground, which does
nothing for anybody; or give them the cash, which is something that they would not do even
if they were the government, so I am surprised to hear them suggest it in a petition as a
possible course of action.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Did you make a deal?
MR. SULLIVAN: I told him that (inaudible). Okay, we will go to the
bill.
MR. J. BYRNE: Okay.
MR. SULLIVAN: We will move the bill. We were hoping for Ed to come
back in.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Order No. 13, "An Act To Amend The Mineral
Act." I understand that the Leader of the Opposition was speaking. I think what we
have agreed to is that the Member for Bonavista South will speak and when the Leader of
the Opposition comes back he will continue his remarks.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the Government House Leader, he has to be faster getting to
his feet. He has to be faster standing up and calling Orders of the Day. He is too slow.
If he cannot fulfil that duty then the member sitting next to him would be very quick to
move in his seat there. He is fast, I say to the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Art is going to have to bring him to New World
Fitness in the morning with him.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, he is going to have to. He will have to go
with Art and Harvey to New World Fitness.
Mr. Speaker, I stand today to say a few words on Bill 38. Every time we
speak of Bill 38 there is a parallel drawn in what is happening in Voisey's Bay and what
is happening in Labrador City.
As I listen to the debate back and forth, I am reminded of Labrador
West where I worked. The second job I ever had, back in 1965, was in Wabush. At that
particular time there were very few homes in Labrador West. If what is happening today in
Labrador West happened back in 1965, there would hardly be a word said because the
situation would have been that nobody looked at Labrador City or Wabush as their home.
Very few people looked at it as their home. It was a place to go to work. It was a place
to make some money. I recall being there, and the big challenge at the time was who could
work the most double shifts. There was no nightlife. You came home, you ate, you slept,
you worked, and that was all there was to be done there at the time.
Things have changed now. It is not uncommon today, when you talk with
people who are retiring, when you ask them where they are going to retire, they answer,
Labrador City; because that is where their children are. That is where they spent the
majority of their working days. They worked in excess of twenty-five years with the Iron
Ore Company of Canada, and when there is a decision made that holds any possibility
whatsoever of having a negative impact on the Iron Ore Company of Canada, or on the town,
today people get upset and emotional, because today it is people's homes. People live
there. It is where they have retired, and it is where they raised their families. That was
not the case thirty years ago, I say to members opposite.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 38 is a bill that I don't think we are going to have
too many problems with over here on this side of the House. We have some concerns about
it. I have some concerns about it, and one of the concerns was echoed in Friday's
Telegram: "One junior mining company executive said it was a kick in the
stomach." He said Bill 38 was a kick in the stomach. Others said, "...the
proposed changes would make Newfoundland a harder place to do business than most corrupt
Third World regimes. All said jobs would vanish. Peter Dimmell, president of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Chamber of Mineral Resources, said the amendments will scare off
new investors."
Mr. Speaker, I ask the government if they consulted with those people
before they wrote up this Act to Amend the Mineral Act? You would think they would have
included the stakeholders. You would have thought they would have talked to some of the
junior mining companies, that they would have talked to people like Peter Dimmell and
said: Here is what we are proposing to do. Can you offer any suggestions or proposals of
what we might include in a mining act?
When you look at the number of jobs that are disappearing out of this
Province today, you would have to question this piece of legislation. You would have to
question it and make us wonder, I suppose, if it is going to have a negative impact and be
a discouragement for job creation.
When you hear, I think it was the Premier or one of the members
opposite - the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology stood in the House the other day
and talked about the Whiffen Head transshipment facility, how there were forty or fifty
full-time jobs there. That is great stuff. Every job is very important. How many jobs are
being created somewhere else? How many jobs are being create on the Eastern Seaboard of
the United States with oil that is produced off our coast? Those are the things that we
have to question. Those are the places that we have to be very vigilant about in trying to
create some economic activity.
You look at our own refinery right here in Come By Chance. You drive
over the highway and you meet workers going to work, and you see the smoke towering from
the stacks, and the flame flying. You have to ask why our own refinery cannot sell oil in
Canada. You have to question that. Why is it, I say to the Member for Bellevue, that we
can have an oil refinery in your district, right here in the Province of Newfoundland, and
we are not allowed to sell one quart of oil from that oil refinery in Canada? Not allowed
to sell one quart of oil. We are allowed to sell it right here in Newfoundland, I say to
members opposite, but we are not allowed to sell it in Canada.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe it was, but you have been in government now
for nine years - eight or nine years. We could have changed it, I say to members opposite.
Instead of having a couple of hundred people there, maybe the expansion that we all talked
about, maybe the petrochemical plant that we talked about might be able to happen there,
and some of our sons and daughters might be able to go to work there and continue to live
in their communities and raise their families. Those are the things that concern me.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of nights ago I turned on the television and I
was listening to Here and Now . I do not know how many people saw it, but it hit me
right in the stomach when I saw a carpenter's union representative, I think it was the
business agent of the carpenter's union, on the local program Here and Now , talk
about the Sobeys complex down here, bringing in carpenters from outside the Province and
paying them $28 an hour, and look after the cost of getting into the Province. That is
shameful, I say to members opposite.
Can you imagine that happening in Quebec? Can you imagine that
happening in any other province but Newfoundland? Can you imagine - I say to the Minister
of Fisheries and Aquaculture who is working so very hard to create jobs and economic
activity, who believes in rural Newfoundland and Labrador - that we would bring carpenters
into Newfoundland and Labrador?
The housewives in Newfoundland and Labrador can build cabinets. They
are all carpenters, I say to members opposite. There are more skilled carpenters in this
Province, I would say, than any other one in the Atlantic region; but what do we do? We
have 20 per cent unemployment and we go out and allow carpenters to be brought in to this
Province and pay them $28 an hour. That is shameful, I say to members opposite. It is
shameful to allow that to happen. I would have thought the Premier would have been on the
radio the next night talking about how there would have to be an end to the skilled labour
being brought into this Province when we have our own people here, unemployed, who are
capable of doing the work.
Everybody sitting over there on that side as well as here knows lots of
carpenters. They know lots of people who can go down there to the Sobeys building on the
Mount Cashel property and put up a building.
Newfoundlanders have built skyscrapers in New York. Newfoundlanders
built Toronto. Newfoundlanders have worked on major construction jobs all over this world,
but still we allow an employer to go outside the Province and bring carpenters into this
Province, pay them $28 an hour, and leave our own carpenters home, unemployed, without a
job, without unemployment insurance, a lot of them. That is shameful and it has to stop.
That is what the fear is with this piece of legislation here. I will
support the piece of legislation, I say to the member, but that does not say it is
perfect. It does not say that there was enough consultation done. I firmly believe that
pieces of legislation like this should be passed to the committees of the House. This
particular piece of legislation should have been passed to the Resource Committee of the
House of Assembly; allowed them to go out and have public hearings; hold a session here in
the House that would not have cost the taxpayers one plug nickel; allowed us to come in
here, have our meetings, allow people to come forward and put forward their suggestions
and their proposals. We go and put together committees of the House of Assembly but they
are always bypassed. Very, very seldom are they ever used. That is one sure way to get in
trouble. That is one sure way for government to get in trouble.
Mr. Speaker, the people who were interviewed in The Telegram
story, `Industry trashes Mining Act amendments, are knowledgeable people. They are people
who will deal with this piece of legislation every day. They are people who know what
should be included and what should not be included in a piece of legislation. They can put
forward their suggestions and proposals. Government will not accept them all. Maybe they
will accept part of it, maybe none of it, but at least we will give them the opportunity
to bring forward their concerns and suggestions, and it can come back into this House and
we and other members can stand here and debate it in an open forum knowing full-well what
the industry asked for and what the industry feels should be included. That is what is not
being done, and that is what should be done here in this piece of legislation.
The only concern that I have is when I hear government talking about
introducing a piece of legislation that they are going to make retroactive back to January
1, 1993.
AN HON. MEMBER: January 1.
MR. FITZGERALD: January 1, 1993. That is frightening, I say to
members opposite, when you can bring in a piece of legislation and go back five years or
more and say: Mr. Inco, or Mr. IOC, or Mr. Bre-X, because you did not play by the rules
fives years ago, the repercussions are that we are going to do this, we are going to do
that, or we are going to take you to court, or we are going to cancel your mining lease.
That is what is scary about this piece of legislation - its retroactivity to go back five
years.
I say to the minister, I suppose this has all gone to the legal people
in Justice. I suppose this has all gone to the lawyers up in Justice, and there is no fear
of a court case coming about to government whereby we are going to see another massive
payout of taxpayers' dollars. We will never know. We will know about the court case, and
we will know there is going to be a payout if there is one, but we will never, ever know
what the settlement will be. That is what is scary about this piece of legislation.
We have to show some accountability. If somebody wants to come here in
this Province and invest money, whether it be in the mining industry, in the manufacturing
industry, in the processing industry of iron ore or fish or wood, we should support them.
We should get whatever we can for the taxpayers of this Province but, by the same token,
create an environment where that particular company can make a profit and be answerable to
its shareholders in order to justify being here in this Province carrying out business.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: I have been over there many times, I say to the
Member for Humber East, and I will continue to go over there to talk with people and put
forward some concerns that happen in my district every day, because we have many of them.
I say to members opposite, those are some of the concerns that I have.
I go back to the Iron Ore Company of Canada situation again. When you
see some of the things that are happening there, it makes you wonder if all of this was
played out in the bigger picture. When the Lower Churchill was to be announced a few
months ago, when all of this was announced with Mr. Bouchard, was all of this a part of
the bigger picture. It is all unfolding now, a little giveaway here, a little giveaway
somewhere else, and all of a sudden: here is the great deal.
I say to the minister from Labrador, where does he stand on the IOC
situation? Where does the minister from Labrador stand on the Labrador issue? Does he
support what government is doing? Does he support the moving and shifting of job
opportunities, and the shift of the company making profits in Labrador rather than in
Quebec?
Some of the things that are happening in this Province today are
shameful. It is shameful when you look at the number of people who are unemployed. It is
shameful when you see the opportunities that could be created. It is shameful when you see
our young people having to leave the Province and go away in order to find a job.
It is one thing we have become accustomed to - not accustomed to - one
thing that we have accepted as Newfoundlanders, is that if we are going to continue to
live here in this Province, there is one thing I assure you: Your family will not be
living around you. Your family will not be living with you. It is very unlikely, I say to
the Government House Leader.
The Government House Leader knows where his family is. Only the other
day he was telling me how he was going to visit his family in some other province of this
country. I know where my family is, and I know where they would like to be. I do not know
of one Newfoundlander who would not rather be home if the opportunity was here.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible) enjoy their life.
MR. FITZGERALD: They could enjoy their life here, I say to the
Government House Leader.
There is one thing that I have found in travelling around; there is
nobody prouder of their Province than Newfoundlanders. There is nobody I have ever met
anywhere who speaks and promotes their Province like Newfoundlanders, because it is a
special place. That is why people would like to be here.
Since NewTel have had this - not Newtel, but this company Sprint, I
think it is - special deal on the go that after 6 p.m. you can make all the phone calls
you want for about $20 a month, there are area codes in my district where it is impossible
to get through in the nighttime because of people away calling home, because of the sons
and daughters and mothers and fathers up in Brooks, Alberta and up in Fort McMurray
calling home.
MR. SULLIVAN: Sixty-five in Whitecourt, Alberta from Plate Cove.
MR. FITZGERALD: Sixty-five families from a little community of less
than 200 people in my district up in Whitecourt, Alberta; from Plate Cove East and Plate
Cove West. Less than 200 people, and sixty-five of the people who once populated those
communities are up in Whitecourt working, doing very well for themselves, but it is not
where they want to be. They are there because they have had the initiative to go away and
find work.
This is the reason why people are upset with what is happening in
Labrador City, and it is the reason why there are a lot of fears being expressed because
of
An Act To Amend The Mineral Act.
Mr. Speaker, that is all I am going to say. I am not going to just kill
time on this particular bill. It is a bill that I feel was brought about because
government has some fears, and rightly so. Rightly so they have fears of what might happen
to Inco. They have fears that Inco will somehow march them before the courts of the land.
It could still very well happen. I suppose that governments have the right and they can
bring about rules and regulations to change just about anything if it goes through the
people's House. That is why you see this bill being retroactive back to 1993, five years
ago.
It is the concern that I have, and it is the concern that some of the
mining industry people have as well. I can assure you that the bill will not go through
with unanimous support on this side and from the other side, and with people involved in
the industry. The minister will get his bill, there is no doubt about that, but there are
some concerns about it. The only advice that I will put forward - and I am sure that the
minister may want to take it - is that when bills come forward of such a controversial
nature, or when there are some concerns expressed about a bill with the stakeholders
involved, maybe he might want to introduce them a little early and have them go through
the appropriate committee of the House of Assembly so hearings might be allowed to happen
and the people, the stakeholders, might be allowed to come forward and offer their views
and opinions.
Sometimes those views and opinions may be the furthest thing that we
will accept, but it gives somebody the peace of mind of knowing that there are other
people out there listening. It gives them an opportunity to express their views and
opinions, and that is important because many people have their lives holdings - in fact
they have financed their lives - in order to get into some of those junior mining
companies and to be able to go out and do some prospecting, make some money, and there is
no better place to do it than right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit and allow somebody else to continue
debate on this bill.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the opportunity just for a few minutes to make some
comments with respect to Bill 38,
An Act To Amend The Mineral Act, legislation which is of
extreme importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as we enter into, I guess, a
new age with respect to mineral development within our jurisdiction.
This act introduces, I guess, a few mechanical changes because we see
from a procedural point of view a number of smaller issues being addressed. I think the
Explanatory Notes, for example - and this has been reviewed by the Minister of Mines and
Energy and my colleague, the Member for Baie Verte, has also alluded to some of the more
procedural changes that we find in the legislation. For example, we see under clause 1 of
the bill an amendment which states now that we need a requirement of an exploration plan.
So clearly the government is asking mining companies who want to do business with the
government of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in other words with the people of
this Province, we want more information, more disclosure being tabled for the benefit of
government so that we can fully see what is being undertaken and what is being envisaged
by a prospective mining company.
Clause 1 of the bill also makes non-compliance with the amendment
contained in this clause an offence, so there is certainly an attempt by this legislation
to provide penal provisions to ensure that any company that wishes to do business with a
government of this Province, that if the company does not adhere to either the statutory
provisions found in the act, or the regulations pursuant to the act, that there will be a
penalty provision. So that certainly puts mining companies on their guard to ensure that
they adhere to the legislation and that there is strict compliance.
Subclause 2(1) of the bill allows for applications for a licence to be
made by mail. I was interested in what my colleague, the Member for Baie Verte, was
saying: that in the past the situation was somewhat farcical in the sense that people
simply had to line up and wait their turn, and spend hours in the early morning or
overnight simply to ensure that their place in line was not overlooked and was not missed.
Obviously this sort of change is simply a practical one, and one that should be for the
benefit of any applicants.
Subclause 2(2) of the bill amends
section 21 of the act in order to
provide a different procedure for areas coming open for re-staking, and a provision for a
draw to determine the priority of applications.
Again, essentially procedural and one which most people I am sure in
the mining industry would agree is of benefit and a move in the right direction.
Clause 3 of the bill would qualify subsection 22(4) regarding the
boundaries of the area of land covered by a licence to apply to only a ground staked
lease.
When one looks closely at the original
section with respect to this
specific issue, when one looks at the old act, we can see that this, too, is just for
greater certainty and of benefit to interested parties.
I am interested in clause 5 as well, and I think there should be some
comment on clause 5. It states that
section 5 of the Act would add the proposed
section
31.1 of the act which would allow the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or Cabinet to order
the holder of a lease to complete primary production of a mineral in the Province.
This is obviously one of the main features of this legislation. It puts
an imposition on the holder of a lease to complete production in accordance with what this
Province deems to be essential and necessary for the well-being of the people of the
Province. Furthermore, it states that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council could also exempt
the holder of a lease from a requirement to complete primary production in the Province.
So we see great authority, great decision-making, being reserved to the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make strategic decisions with respect to the holder of a
lease and the primary production in the Province of that particular mineral.
Clause 7 of the bill adds a proposed paragraph, number 35(a.1), which
allows the minister to cancel a lease for failure to comply with an order made under the
proposed section. So again we see perhaps unfettered discretion being given to the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council, or to the minister, to not only ensure that certain points
are adhered to by the applicant but also gives the power of revocation or the power of
cancellation with respect to the cancelling of a lease.
In a few moments I would just like to speak briefly about this
discretion being given to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council as it relates to the proposed
changes to Bill 38.
Clause 8 of the proposed bill adds a new proposed subsection labelled
38(2), which would, "...prohibit the Mineral Rights Adjudication Board from hearing
matters related to the proposed
Section 31.1..." which I referenced earlier.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear what the purpose and the intent of this
legislation is; however, I think it is important to realize that this restriction is quite
significant. It is quite substantial when we look at the fact that there is now a
prohibition in the fact that the Mineral Rights Adjudication Board is essentially
disbanded. It no longer exists. What this does is that there is no objective third party.
There is essentially no instrument in the legislation which would respond to decisions
made by the minister or by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
This is obviously significant legislation and one which - when we look
at the intent of the legislation - very many people would agree with, but one has to
question: What about an independent review? What about an independent body being put in
place to perhaps assess decisions and positions that may be made by applicants in
accordance with the legislation? I would be interested in learning from the minister what
the substance of the legal opinions have been with respect to the constitutionality of
such a provision.
Again, we agree with the spirit of the act. We agree with the spirit of
the legislation. However, it would be a shame, I say to members opposite, if in three
months' time or six months' time there is a provision of this legislation which is deemed
to be what is known as ultra vires and without the constitutional authority of this
Legislature to in fact implement and, once that particular clause or
section is tested, to
find that a superior court, either in this Province or the Supreme Court of Canada,
attempts to strike down that very provision. That would be unfortunate because that
obviously goes against what the spirit and the intent of the legislation is.
So my question to the minister would be - or a comment I would have -
is that it is hoped that a thorough legal analysis and a complete and thorough legal
opinion has been presented to the minister to ensure that the risk of having this
legislation defeated is a very small one, it is a very minimal risk, because if it is not
a minimal risk perhaps this is only an exercise in futility and we are going through
legislation generally supported by the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
which can be challenged perhaps by individuals who want to do business with the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I am certain, of course, that the department and the minister has
sought legal advice, but I would be interested in knowing how foolproof the legislation
is. Is it similar to legislation in other parts of this country? Have other similar
provisions been contested or challenged constitutionally in either the Supreme Court of a
particular province or in the Supreme Court of Canada? Do we have precedents available to
us which in some way can give this government an indication as to how successful any
challenge may be and how defensible the position of this government may be.
These are simply words of caution and, I would say on behalf of the
members of this side of the House, words of concern, because in spirit the legislation
attempts to achieve what the people of this Province support. However, it would be indeed
a serious omission if in fact the risk is great, only to find out that the very
constitutionality of either the act as a whole, or certain provisions or sections of it,
may be constitutionally defeated.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, I say to the member, it certainly should not
be referred, but I certainly say that the research ought to have been completed and the
position confirmed before this legislation has reached where it is, in fact, today.
Under clause 10 of the bill, it increases the maximum fine upon
conviction for an offence under the act from the present $2,000 to $10,000. That is
generally supportable, I would say, because obviously it gives teeth to the legislation
and it sends a message to any company or any enterprise or any entrepreneur who is
interested in making application to the Department of Mines and Energy that non-compliance
will not be accepted, and that there is a real penalty, there is a provision here, that if
you do not adhere to our legislation the courts will deal with you in a much harsher
manner.
Clause 11 would add the proposed
section 45 to the act which prohibits
an action against the Crown. Perhaps I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, if there is one
section
of the act that is at greatest risk, I would suggest this is the section, whereby the
legislation in and of itself, on the face of the legislation, we see
an act of the
provincial Legislature basically saying to any third party, basically saying to anybody
who wants to do business, that under
section 45 of the proposed legislation there is a
prohibition of any action, in other words no third party may commence an action against
the Crown for compensation arising out of an order made under
section 31.1 referred to in
clause 5.
This is extremely strong language; one which again, in accordance with
the spirit of the legislation, many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would support.
However, I raise a concern that in fact by denying any individual or any corporate entity
that right to commence an action against the Crown is