Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 13 December 1999 (44th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLIV No. 51)
1999-12-13
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 13, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 51
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to read a statement that stands in the name of the hon.
the Premier.
Sir Robert Bond stood in the Colonial Building to announce the construction
of the Newfoundland Museum in 1905. It was in 1955 that the hon. Joey Smallwood
stood in our former House of Assembly to announce the creation of the Provincial
Archives of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was in 1961 that he stood in the same
House of Assembly to announce the creation of the Art Gallery of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
It is mindful of these historic precedents that I am proud to stand in this
House today to announce that, a full ninety-four years after the first
announcement and thirty-eight years after the last, the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador will construct a new facility to house our three
heritage institutions: the Newfoundland Museum, the Provincial Archives of
Newfoundland and Labrador and the Art Gallery of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: This new building will be constructed at a cost of $40
million and will be financed by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It
will be a state-of-the-art facility which will draw upon the latest technology,
while its architecture will be rooted in our vernacular. We have decided to call
the building The Rooms in order to reflect the tradition of building our fishing
structures close to the water, close to the resources which has sustained
Newfoundland and Labrador for centuries.
Mr. Speaker, the existing buildings which house our three institutions are no
longer adequate to store and exhibit our heritage treasures. Many of these
structures were built prior to the development of modern museum standards and
others were never built to serve as heritage institutions. This is placing our
natural specimens, our material artifacts, our archival documents, our films and
photographs and our work of art in danger of deterioration and loss. This is
cheating the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. They deserve to have these
treasures preserved for their children and their grandchildren. They deserve to
be better able to enjoy these treasures today.
That is why we have taken this bold step to consolidate all these three
heritage institutions into one building. This building will be constructed at
Fort Townsend in St. John's on the site of the former military fort. I will
draw your attention to one outstanding feature, among many others, and that is
the building will have an archaeological dig taking place inside, even after the
building is constructed, making it a rare and unique museum in North America for
this type of archaeological program.
I would like to offer a special thank you to the Advisory Committee on
Cultural Infrastructure, co-chairs Mary Pratt and Robert Jenkins and their
dedicated team including Wayne Trask, Dr. Phil Warren, Art May, Robert Thompson,
Clyde Granter, and Aileen O'Rafferty. This group consulted widely with the
cultural community of this Province and developed the proposal we are announcing
today.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are justly proud of their cultural heritage,
Scottish or any other ancestors. What we have in this Province is unique and
deserves to be preserved for future generations. It also deserves to be better
displayed for our own enjoyment and for the enjoyment of visitors to this
Province. We are therefore very proud to continue the tradition begun by Sir
Robert Bond and continued by Joey Smallwood of ensuring
that we do not forget whence we came, so that we may face the world in full
confidence.
This is indeed an historic occasion, and I am certain that all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will rejoice at this announcement.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This initiative by government today has been some time coming. It was debated
when the member who I am looking at right now was the Minister of Tourism and
Culture, when the Minister of Mines and Energy was the Minister of Tourism and
Culture, and it is something that was committed to and promised to the people of
the Province some seven to eight years ago.
I want to congratulate government in this context. There is no question that
any society that does not put emphasis on not only its cultural heritage in
terms of the past, its present but also its future, is doomed to be lost. The
initiative today hopefully will go a long way in putting the infrastructure in
place to capitalize on the growing cultural industry and what it will mean in
economic terms, job spinoffs, et cetera for the Province.
We have to do more than build buildings. Within our education institutions
themselves, we have to begin to start teaching about our culture within the
classroom, I say, Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: - something that we are sadly lacking in today. We have
bought into, as a Province, and government has bought into, as a government, the
notion of an Atlantic Canadian curriculum, and to some extent that is very, ery
important - within the sciences, math, biology, chemistry, et cetera - but there
is no culture in Canada as old as ours, as unique as ours, or has the ability to
promote itself better than ours. Unless we recognize that in our everyday living
within our institutions - so that when the minister truly says that we can face
the world very confident, yes we can. We can face it confidently, but also very
knowledgeable of who we are, where we came from, where we are, and where we want
to be as a people.
Mr. Speaker, it would also be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to
thank the committee as well. I see Dr. Phil Warren, former Minister of
Education, sitting in the House, and acknowledge his presence and thank him for
his involvement in this today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is with pleasure that I rise in support of this announcement made today by
the Premier. It is a very important cultural initiative for the future of our
Province and a statement about our confidence in our own history, in our own
culture, and in our own future. I think it is an idea which has been around for
a long time, certainly, but one that must be done now because of the state of
our archival material and the need for a new building to house it.
I also want to congratulate the work of the committee co-chaired by Mary
Pratt and Bob Jenkins, and with the services of Dr. Warren and others on the
committee. I think they have done a marvelous job of conceptualizing this
cultural centre.
I think we also want to express the hope at this time that what goes on
inside the centre, I hope, will also be modern, forward-looking, and have all of
the availability of involving people in our culture, in our past, in our history
and in our art. It is a legacy for generations to come, a very important
announcement, and one that I support wholeheartedly.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker
I rise today to provide my hon. colleagues with an overview of our fishing
industry's performance so far this year, and I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, the
news about our fishery just keeps getting better.
As our fishery is drawing to a close for the final year of this century, our
preliminary data to the end of November, 1999, demonstrates exceptional growth
in production value, landed value, landings and employment. This is indeed
another record-breaking year for us.
This year the fishing industry directly employed 25,000 people, and another
7,000 indirectly. Average monthly employment in fish processing from January to
November increased 32 per cent to 8,200. On average, an additional 2,000 people
per month were employed in fish processing in 1999 over last year. Not only are
more people employed in the fishery, but they are working for longer period than
in previous years. I am happy to report that processing employment is at its
highest level since 1991.
The harvesting sector experienced a 16 per cent decline in employment, from
an average of 10,700 last year compared to 9,000 so far in 1999. This is the
result of license buy-backs, retirements, retraining, and other post-TAGS
initiatives, and is consistent with government's capacity realignment policy.
We have experienced another record year in landed value, which is, to date,
approximately $460 million. This compares to $384 million in 1998, which was
also a record year. By the end of 1999, the landed value is expected to increase
to approximately $515 million on a volume of 260,000 tonnes. These
record-breaking numbers have been driven by higher prices for high value species
such as crab. Landed prices this season for snow crab have ranged between 55 per
cent and 70 per cent higher than last yea r's
levels.
Mr. Speaker, I am exited to inform my hon. colleagues that our production
value to date is more than $950 million and expected to reach $1 billion this
year - by the end of the year- another record, Mr. Speaker!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: This record number, which is just short of $1 billion, is due
to the high value of shellfish and higher landings of cod in a stronger market
environment.
Groundfish and shellfish landings have increased by 31 per cent and 51 per
cent, respectively, during the first eleven months of 1999. This is a result of
increased quotas. Cod quotas increased to 30,000 tonnes in 3Ps and there was a
9,000 tonne allocation in 2J+3KL, the first time since 1992. Crab and shrimp
quotas each rose by over 12,000 tonnes this year. Concerns have been raised
about the 3Ps cod stock where 1988 and 1989 year classes make up the large
portion of the stock. The Province will continue to respond to every prudent
measure for the management of this stock, as well as for other species such as
crab which are now so important to the fishery and our economy.
Pelagic landings are down slightly due to lower capelin landings and lower
herring quotas. The capelin quota was not fully taken this year as strong
fisheries in Norway and Iceland satisfied a substantial portion of the market
before the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery commenced.
Overall, markets in 1999 have been positive as a result of our hard work
through our Quality Assurance Program. Snow crab markets are strong due to solid
consumer demand and lower world supplies. Resource problems in Alaska, our
biggest competitor, have reduced the supply of snow crab. This should provide us
with the opportunity for another robust year in 2000, especially with our
continued emphasis on quality and our commitment to build on the strides we have
made for producing top quality products.
All major fisheries started on time and in an orderly fashion this year due
to a government-industry pilot project established in 1998 for negotiating fish
prices. This two-year pilot project has been extended until June 2000, at which
time it will be legislated into the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.
This new model of collective bargaining will play a major role in maintaining
stability in the industry and creating a more viable fishery for the future.
Our aquaculture sector continues to grow, with mussels, steelhead and salmon
being the major aquaculture species, representing 95 per cent of production.
Mussel production at the end of November reached 1,350 tonnes, and we are
expecting production to double last year's 950 tonnes by the end of the year.
Our aquaculture export value is expected to exceed $16 million in 1999, compared
to $13 million in 1998.
Mr. Speaker, we should all be proud of how far our fishery has come since the
collapse of our traditional groundfish industry in 1992. We have developed a
new, diversified fishery that is professional, stable, and more viable.
Challenges remain, but with prudent management measures I have every confidence
that we can build on this success for the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We, in the Opposition, are certainly pleased to see a new species being
harvested here and creating jobs here in our Province. The aquaculture industry,
while still in the embryonic stage, is starting to get some returns, and I am
sure there is continuous growth we expect to see in the future.
I might add that we have entered a whole new fishery for many parts of our
Province here, in shrimp, and that has certainly contributed immensely to the
high export value we have. We have to keep in perspective also that crab this
year, in price, is up a minimum of 50 per cent over last year. Even right now it
is up even higher this fall than earlier in the year by about thirty to forty
cents a pound.
We also have to keep in mind that in the past it has been as high as $2.50
per pound, from generally $1.50 starting this year. It has been as low as sixty
cents a pound, and there can be immense fluctuations out there in the market and
in the export value of crab. Even shrimp seems to have been certainly more
stable from last year to this year; very similar in comparison, but in
particular we have to keep in mind that the groundfish industry in this Province
has not come back. The number of people who were employed in the industry, in
groundfish, was considerably higher than numbers employed in the fishery today.
While granted there is a higher export value, and there are higher prices to
harvesters - they are doing fairly well overall - many areas of this Province
are still devastated from the downturn in groundfish, cod and flounder in
particular.
Look at the number of weeks. I know in my district, and in numerous plants in
almost all members' districts around this Province, some have hardly opened
their doors and processed the fish since 1992. There are many of them there. If
you look at the weeks they are getting in, for example, Bonavista, Catalina,
Port Union, Marystown, Fortune, Harbour Breton, they are trying to spread fish
around to get fourteen, sixteen and eighteen weeks work in certain areas that
were primarily groundfish plants. We have not come close
to historic levels of employment in the fishery in general.
We have done it in export value because of higher price species, but we haven't
returned to where we want to be. If we do return to historic levels, and
employment levels in the Province, we will have a tremendous fishery that is
sustainable in terms of jobs on long term. We do have some now that are subject
to market volatility to a degree, and at certain points in a cycle where people
tell us that they may be at an upper end of a cycle and we might have a leveling
off in certain ones that are bringi ng high export value to
our Province.
We have to be cognizant of that, because rural Newfoundland today is still
affected immensely in employment rates, and they are reflected in statistics
that have been openly discussed for this past week, in particular, in rural
Newfoundland. An editorial, I think, addresses one of those real things. Rural
Newfoundland has not come back to life. It is still reeling and suffering. The
more we can do to put investment opportunities in rural Newfoundland, the better
it will be, and the longer, more prosperous rural Newfoundland we will have,
built on a fishery and hopefully it can be maintained on a fishery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly encouraging to hear good news about the fishery of our
Province which most often suffers from bad management and bad news, so we do see
some significant improvement in the ability of our fishing industry to support
our communities. I would however say there is a need for more stability in the
industry and the knowledge that quotas that are available for a species are
available to a community. I hope the government will support the community quota
system that seems to be resisted by Ottawa to date.
In the Province's own jurisdiction, we also see a new old feature of our
fishery where boat owners are dependent upon merchants in a way that they were
not when they could go to the fisheries loan board and get loans. Now they have
to be beholden to a particular merchant in order to finance their vessels. That
is something that ought to be changed by a revitalized fisheries loan board.
We would also like to see the government play a more significant role in the
development of marketing research and development for new products and new
markets for our products, and ensure that we do have the technology, the
information and the new research and development that will improve the products
coming out of our fishery and increase its value.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Education. Last February,
government announced - and I have here the press release, where the Premier said
himself - that within the Avalon East School Board, if a community consensus
could not be reached, that the benefits of education reform would not be lost,
that it was one of the most important decisions or actions that this government
has taken: namely, solid programming, neighborhood schooling.
I would like to ask the minister this today. In view of the fact that in the
Avalon East Board, particularly in the St. John's West area, community
consensus has not been reached, that there is a division within the community,
are you prepared today to sit down with the Avalon East School Board and people
who have legitimate and real concerns about the education of their children in
St. John's West to discuss with them those concerns, to work with them to find
a viable and long-term solution?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I support the Avalon East School Board in its most
recent decision. In fact, I supported the Avalon East School Board when it came
out in favor of K to IX neighborhood school system.
What we have to recognize here is that - and that is exactly what the Premier
was referring to last February when he talked about building a community
consensus - you have to look at the Avalon East district in its entirety. We do
not have the luxury of looking at one particular area of a district and taking
that in isolation. What we are looking at here is the entire Avalon East
district. If you were to look at the student population today and look at what
is going to happen to that population withi n
a number of years, the declining student enrolment is such that even today there
is in excess of 1,500 empty spaces in the school district in St. John's.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, those numbers have been refuted. The fact of
the matter is that when government says it has reached a community consensus it
has not. Many people within the entire Avalon East region said: Next year, if
system is not maintained, we will be on your doorstep saying: How come my child
was displaced from school A? How come my child was displaced from this school
here?
Minister, I asked you and I will ask you again: Will you sit down and meet
with the Avalon East School Board, with people in the region who have legitimate
and real concerns about the quality of education, about the type of commitments
that your government made? Will you do that, sit down with them to reach a
viable and long-lasting solution? Yes or no?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
[There was applause from the gallery.]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I just want to remind the visitors to the gallery that they are not to take
part in any way in this debate, to show approval or disapproval in any way. That
has been a long standing parliamentary tradition and I ask you to respect it.
The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I
have had lengthy discussions with the Avalon East School Board, with the
Chairman of the Avalon East School Board and with other trustees of the Avalon
East School Board. I have also had representation from other parents in the West
End of St. John's. I have also had e-mails and I have had written
correspondence. The issue here is whether or not there is to be a K to XII
system in the West End of St. John's.
The issue for the government is not whether or not there is a K to XII system
in the West End of St. John's, but whether or not we have the funding to put
in place for it to build a new school in the West End of St. John's, whether
that is a K to VI or VII to XII school. The point here is that we do not have
the revenue to put in to building yet another new school in the St. John's
part of the district when, in fact, we have perfectly good structures that will
be empty in a number of years from now if we were to look at the declining
student enrolment. The point is that we do have a significant declining student
enrolment in this Province, let alone in St. John's East. Again, when you talk
about 1,500 empty spaces - yes, maybe they have been refuted, but I can tell you
that those are the numbers we are getting from the school board. It is the
school board that has the authority to determine which schools will be
restructured, redeveloped and what new schools will be built. Based on the
numbers they have available to them, as well as the funding we have available to
us in terms of building new buildings, we do not have the luxury of being able
to look at an additional $10 million, $11 million or $12 million to put into a
new school in the West End of St. John's when we have committed $125 million
as it is for around the entire Province.
I now have on my desk requests for $45 million of work from other parts of
this Province, not for new buildings but for new windows, new roofs, new doors,
all of the things that are needed in rural Newfoundland as well as in other
urban centres, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister she take the time to
meet with the board and parents. If she did she would find out it is not going
to cost $10 million, $11 million, $12 million or $15 million to put a new
structure in place; it is more like $6 million or $7 million.
Minister, you have said that you met with the board on any number of
occasions. Isn't it a fact that the only time that you have met with the
school board was last spring, and that you haven't taken the opportunity as
the Minister of Education to sit down with the entire board to discuss this
situation, as it exists right now, to find a viable solution.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, if the viable solution means an additional $6
million to build a new school, it is not available. I do not know how many times
I have to say it or how much clearer I can make it. The requests we have now for
$45 million - an additional $45 million - to $125 million that we already have
committed is not there. There is no need to build another building when we have
a severely declining student enrolment. We have a bus transportation system in
this Province, in this city, that will enable the high school students in the
West End, many of whom travel to the centre of the city now for school, many of
whom go to Bishops College, many of whom go to I.J. Sampson Junior High, and
many of whom go to Booth Memorial High School.
The other issue here is that if we are to build a new high school in the West
End of St. John's and you take some of the students that are now going to
Bishops College or to Booth Memorial High School to go to the new high school in
the West End of St. John's, then clearly one of the structures that now exists
will have to close. Which one, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister is clearly showing her lack of
knowledge because she has not taken the time to do the homework on it. Let me
ask her this. Is she aware that there are $4 million already allocated for
renovations to a perfectly good existing high school, and also part of that
renovation money to renovate a perfectly good junior high school into a
primary-elementary, and that it would not take $6 million to construct a new
facility? That in fact what the area needs is a brand new primary-elementary
school? That is what the area needs, not a new high school. It already has one,
minister.
My question is this. Will you meet with the entire school board to discuss
with them the problems they have with your government in not providing them the
same per capita amount of funding that you have provided to other school boards
so they can complete the reform process that promised neighbourhood schooling,
equality of programing, to the people of this Province? Yes or no?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I
have no difficulty whatsoever meeting with the Avalon East School Board, just as
I would meet with any other school board in the Province. I have met with the
Avalon East School Board. I have met with the Chair of the Avalon East School
Board. I will not meet with individual trustees. I will meet with those trustees
as long as the Chair of the board is there because at the end of the day
whatever I say I want on the record and not someone else's
interpretation of
what I have said.
I have no difficulty meeting with either school board in this Province,
discussing with them what their needs and wishes are, but I will make it very
clear to them that as long as we have a declining student enrolment, as long as
we have needs in rural Newfoundland as well for money for windows, doors, roofs
and you name it, then I am certainly going to consider that as much as I would
consider building a new school in an area of this Province where we also have a
significantly declining student enrolment, and where there is a perfectly good
structure that already exists that can accommodate the students in the West End.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to say to the minister that the school board will be happy to hear
today that you will meet with the entire board, not the Chairman at certain
conventions or here or there, but that you will meet with the entire board, I
say to the minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: I spoke to school board members today before I came here
who said that the minister has not met with the school board since the spring,
and that a committee of the board went in to meet with minister. She did not
come to the meeting. She sent her officials to it. So I can take it from you,
minister, is this the case?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: I can take
from you today that you will meet with the school board as soon as possible to
try to work out a viable solution for the people in the Avalon East School Board
and, in particular, in St. John's West?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I have never had a request from the school board
to meet with the entire school board since the request came in last spring when
I met with them. I have met with the Chair of the board. I had a request to meet
with one trustee from the school board which I refused to do without the
presence of the Chair there. So yes, if the board requests a meeting with me to
meet with the entire board, of course I will meet with them.
Mr. Speaker, if the viable solution is an additional $2 million, $3 million,
$4 million, $5 million, or $6 million, I don't have it to build a new school
in the West End of St. John's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the
Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last November, Mr. Jim Thistle, the Province's chief negotiator on the
Churchill River Development, told the CBC that agreements reached in
negotiations with Quebec or Quebec Hydro, up to that time, were all subject to
getting the transmission line. The words he used were, and I quote: Certainly
contemplating having to have the transmission line. End of quote.
Is that still the position of government? I ask the minister: Will there be a
deal with the Province of Quebec if there is no transmission line to the Island?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I apologize for a poor voice today. I have a little bit sore throat. I will
probably keep my answers a little briefer as well.
The issue in the Labrador Hydro project discussions of a potential in-feed to
the Island has never ever been a concern of the Government of Quebec and the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an issue that has been dealt with
between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of
Canada. There are still ongoing joint assessments being done by officials from
see whether or not it is going to be viable or feasible to construct an in-feed
at this point in time for a cost of some $2.1 billion or $2.2 billion.
Mr. Speaker, the understanding from the very beginning is that the project
itself would not pay for itself unless we can come up with some kind of a
and Labrador, but it has nothing to do with whether or not the rest of the deal
is finished with the Province of Quebec.
MR. SPEAKER: A
supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One of the great embarrassments for this Province with the Upper Churchill
contract was that the contract was made subject to Quebec law and the Quebec
courts. In terms of the law, we surrendered sovereignty over our own resource.
You promised at the beginning of the current negotiations that all agreements
and contracts would be subject only to the law, to our law, and to our courts.
Is that still your position, I ask the Minister? Will any part of the agreements
being negotiated with Quebec and Quebec Hydro be subject to Quebec law and/or
the Quebec courts?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That remains the position of the government in these discussions. Any
particular arrangement, such as the guaranteed winter availability contract or
the recall of the 130 megawatts of power which has already occurred and already
benefitted the Province some $60 million in cash over the last couple of years
and over the life of the existing power purchase contract, will benefit the
Province an additional $1 billion above and beyond what was contemplated in the
1960s contracts.
When there are adjustments to the existing power purchase agreement, they
continue to be judged by the current prevailing law, which is the laws of
Quebec. For any new arrangements, the understanding is fully that for any new
arrangements the law applying will be the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: A
supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: Has Quebec or Quebec Hydro requested that the Province
exempt the Lower Churchill power agreement and/or the utilities that provide
power from the Churchill River system from any of the laws of this Province,
especially laws dealing with the allocation and reallocation of electrical
power?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will certainly check
into it.
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.
There have been many instances in which people have been seriously injured and
the St. John's Regional Fire Department was never dispatched following a 911.
A Goulds area man, who is still in hospital after falling fourteen feet from a
roof on October 29, suffered compound fractures to the tibia and fibula. He had
seven crushed bones in his foot; had to have four discs fused in his back. He
lay in a pool of water on a concrete floor for ten minutes
waiting for an ambulance to arrive when, if the call had to be coded a four, the
Goulds Fire Department, with trained paramedics, could have been on the scene in
a matter of just a couple of minutes.
Why, Minister, aren't there some written guidelines to use in determining
what constitutes a Code 4? That is an emergency call that would allow the fire
department to be able to be dispatched.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, all of the emergency services with respect to
ambulance and the operation of emergency services comes under the community
health board, the Community Health Corporation, I believe, and they have the
protocols in place to handle the particular system of response. I am not aware
of any specific case that the hon. member brings to my attention at this time.
It is only something that I can bring to the attention of the minister and
onwards to the board itself, but I do understand that there are existing
protocols that are currently and continuously under review to ensure that they
provide the best level of service possible. Further than that, Mr. Speaker, I
would certainly just have to take the matter under advisement.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a copy of the protocol for dispatching the St. John's Region Fire
Department. The director has admitted and accepted that it should have been
coded a four. In fact, there are no written guidelines for what constitutes a
Code 4, none whatsoever in the department. I spoke with the director and she
indicated that there are none.
In this particular instance, the ambulance attendants had to rely on
unprofessional help in getting the man on a stretcher. The man even had to
assist himself, as he lay there, in trying to get on a stretcher. There was no
request for backup assistance when trained paramedics were nearby.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Does she think it would also be prudent
to dispatch the closest paramedic help?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, if what the hon. member is suggesting is that
there is a weakness in the existing protocol - and I can only say at this point
that it is his suggestion - if that is the case, it is certainly something that
I can only pass on to the minister and to the Health Care Corporation at this
time for their review.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have already passed it on. There is no intention of a review because it is
considered not necessary, I have been told.
The fire department has equipment to deal with industrial accidents - that is
correct - but they do not always get called. They were not called when a man was
recently electrocuted at MUN.
The fire department responds to a vehicle/traffic accident, but they are not
dispatched if a vehicle hits a pedestrian. A minute can be critical in certain
instances. I want to ask the minister: Why is this so? Shouldn't the quickest
response be utilized, because you can never predict the precise seriousness of
an injury?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
MS BETTNEY: Again, Mr, Speaker, I am not the best person to try and
prejudge the emergency response, nor the appropriateness of the emergency
response. We do have professionals within the Health Care Corporation who manage
the emergency response system.
As I have said before, if there is a particular weakness in that system, then
I would suggest to you that it is best passed back to the Health Care
Corporation for their review so that they can respond accordingly.
I, as one person here, am not in a position to really comment on the
appropriateness or otherwise of the protocol.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Environment and Labour and it concerns
offshore safety. The federal Minister of Natural Resources has indicated his
intention to open up the Atlantic Accord with respect to Nova Scotia to transfer
additional responsibilities of offshore safety from the Nova Scotia government
to the Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. According to the minister, similar
changes to the Newfoundland legislation will take place.
Can the minister advise whether he is involved with these
negotiations/discussions, and why he would contemplate transferring additional
regulations to the C-NOPB when they do not have enforcement regulations now?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The issue that the hon. member raises has been one that has been a matter of
discussion between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal
government for a considerable period of time now.
The federal Minister of Natural Resources has indicated to both governments
in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland that the requests that had come from both
governments to give more certainty to the fact that the petroleum boards were
actually administering the safety regulations would be forthcoming, and they are
going to proceed with that in the federal Parliament on a timely basis.
We will also be asked to pass companion documents here to amend the Accord
Act so that we can, in fact, guarantee without any doubt - there is very little
doubt at the moment. No one should think that there is anyone that is not doing
everything for the safety of the workers in the offshore because that is not the
case. It is one of the safest workplaces around. Every regulation of both the
federal and provincial governments is being enforced by the Canada-Newfoundland
Offshore Petroleum Board.
To give greater certainty, in case there is ever a challenge of their
authority to enforce the regulations, the two governments in the next short
while will bring forward amendments in both Parliaments to make sure that there
cannot be any legal challenges as to the authority to implement the regulations.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My supplementary to the Minister of Environment and Labour is dealing with
the fact that we have before the House today occupational health and safety
amendments to increase the fines and punishments for violation of our
Occupational Health and Safety Act. If the Minister of Environment and Labour
feels it is important that we increase these fines and have an enforceable
regime -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him now to get to his question.
MR. HARRIS: - for safety in every other aspect of industry in the
Province, why is an unenforceable set of draft regulations satisfactory in our
offshore?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me try again to make sure that nobody in Newfoundland and Labrador would
ever believe that the regulations are unenforceable in the offshore. That is not
the case. They are totally enforceable. It is just a matter that if somebody -
every single incident and every single workplace situation that has been covered
and addressed in the offshore, if there has ever been an order or a directive
given under Canadian law or Newfoundland law, it has been adhered to and
followed in the offshore. Safety has been paramount with the operators, so I
would not want anyone to be left with the impression that the regulations are
not enforceable.
What I did say outside the Legislature, in answer to this question a week or
ten days ago, is that if one of the operators for some reason decided that they
did not want to comply with the an order given by the Canada-Newfoundland
Offshore Petroleum Board, they could find a legal loophole which we are now
going to close between the two governments; but there has never, ever, been an
instance or an incident whereby they have not complied completely and have not
even tried to challenge the fact that the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum
Board enforces the safety regulations on behalf of both governments.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation. Last week the minister stood on a Ministerial Statement,
frustrated with the lack of information coming from his federal counterpart with
respect to the Gulf ferry service; but, of course, lo and behold, out of the
deeps again the minister, our representative in Ottawa, Mr. Baker, comes with
public knowledge again last night and again this morning.
My first question to the minister is: Have you yet been formally notified by
your federal counterpart, Mr. Collenette, of whether Ottawa is ready to purchase
or lease a new vessel for this particular run?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, there has been no news from Ottawa and no
communication from the federal minister, absolutely none whatsoever since last
week.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker,
one person reported to me that they were afraid that the vessel might be in Confusion
Bay' and lost. It should be on its way, but another bit of confusion added to
the long list.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Education: Mr. Baker is worried. Mr.
Baker is concerned that the 200 jobs at the ferry may not be ready in this
Province. I would like to ask the minister: Are you worried about the 200 jobs,
and has your department been preparing so that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
can indeed have those 200 jobs so it does not overheat the economy in this
Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is talking about the boat, saying it might be in Confusion
Bay'. Maybe it is in la-la land, I don't know (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is - as one of my hon. members
said - if Mr. Baker and Mr. Collenette deliver a boat, we will deliver the jobs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, according to Mr. Baker, it is not la-la
land the minister in. Nobody seems to be communicating on this. As a matter of
fact, Mr. Baker suggested this morning again that he should talk to the Premier
because the Premier knows more than he does about what is going on in Ottawa.
So, maybe my first question is that the minister ask the Premier what is going
on.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, a suggestion for the minister in this Province
is that he, who has been frustrated, Mr. Collenette, who has said nothing, and
Mr. Baker, who is confused, should get together and put some facts forward.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.
MR. SHELLEY: The question is, Mr. Speaker: Are the ministers planning to
get together soon - because, as you said, timing is important for the tourism
industry and so on - or do we have to wait for Nightline for another update from
the minister?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, we have kept corresponding with Ottawa. We
have kept corresponding with the federal minister and other MPs as well. There
is nothing more we can do except for trying to keep the heat on Ottawa and
Marine Atlantic to make sure that there is something put in place, despite what
some other officials might have said about Marine Atlantic.
I reiterate my concern here again this evening; as far as I am concerned, it
is getting late. We need an announcement on that ferry before Christmas and no
later than Christmas, as far as I am concerned, for something to be put in place
for next summer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are also for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation,
and they are following up from questions I asked on Friday.
Given the fact, Mr. Minister, that the ferry to Harbour Deep has remained
tied up in Jackson's Arm since Friday, given the fact that she missed her
scheduled trip on Sunday due to mechanical difficulties, and given the fact that
community leaders in Harbour Deep were not given adequate comfort as to the
seaworthiness of the Lady Rosella Regina B
from the ferry's crew last week, will the minister today admit, in this House,
the concerns of the residences of Harbour Deep were justified and that they
acted properly in refusing to place their family members in potential jeopardy
by asking them to use a ferry that was not mechanically fit?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no truth whatsoever in
what the hon. member is saying. It is something similar to what he said on
Friday - no substance whatsoever.
I have had inspectors on the boat ever since Friday in Jackson's Arm -
Saturday - two inspectors there today dealing with different aspects of life
safety and concerns, and mechanical and so on. In fact, as we speak, the vessel
is on sea trials now by those two inspectors on board. I have an air service put
in place for the people of Harbour Deep this evening. If the vessel passes all
inspections this evening, that vessel will be back on the run tomorrow morning.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: Will he commit today - given the different versions that
exist in the public forums - to make the report of the Canadian Safety
Inspectors a public document, and will he personally go to Harbour Deep and
share that complete report with the residents of Harbour Deep, to give them the
comfort that they need before they are asked again to use this ferry?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker,
like I said before, I have the inspectors in the Jackson's Arm area ever since
Friday and Saturday. They are inspecting the vessel. The vessel was mechanically
sound when it left Harbour Deep to come back to Jackson's Arm on Saturday. The
inspectors are on the vessel; they are out now doing sea trials. I do not know
what - the hon. member, I can see that he is uncomfortable about it. He is
squirming in his seat because what he said on Friday was wrong. You can squirm
further. When I get the reports back this evening, whatever the inspectors
report, I will make it public. It is public knowledge. Why shouldn't I?
Not only that, the people of Harbour Deep have designated one individual from
Harbour Deep to come up with the vessel from Harbour Deep to Jackson's Arm. He
stayed with the vessel all weekend, and he is with the inspectors today -
MR. TULK: Send Harvey down.
MR. WOODFORD: Probably we should send the member down next week on it.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
There is time for a quick supplementary.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, the residents of Harbour Deep found it necessary on Saturday to
hire two private fixed-winged aircraft to fly their family members to Jackson's
Arm. In total, thirty-six people were flown out for a total cost of $2,160.
Given their concerns about the seaworthiness of the
Lady Rosella Regina B , and given the fact that it is
obvious that their concerns were justified, will the minister today undertake to
compensate these residents for that expenditure?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I had absolutely no requests whatsoever for
any air service on Saturday. I had no requests whatsoever for any air services
yesterday. I did have a request today, at lunchtime, for a request for air
service this evening; that is put in place. I did not know anything about what
happened on Saturday. If the request was put in on Saturday, I would have
provided it; but the only request I had for air service into Harbour Deep was
just before I came to the House and I instructed my officials to do so.
MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I would like to table the report of the Select Committee on Standing
Orders on behalf of the Chair, the Member for Terra Nova.
I ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to comment on a few general aspects of the report.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Standing Orders have been amended on several occasions since 1949; in
1951, 1974, 1979, 1993 and 1995. The present changes that we see are among the
most comprehensive and they fall into three basic categories: substantive
amendments, technical amendments, and practice notes. I would just like to add
that practice notes are added to provide the members with guidelines for
convenience but they are not considered matters - they are considered matters
that are best left flexible and not to be included in the main body of Standing
Orders.
I would like to touch on just a couple of the major, particular areas that we
dealt with under this Select Committee. Parliamentary Groupings agreed on a
criteria for recognition of members as a parliamentary group. The definition of
parliamentary groups is included in our notes. Basically, a parliamentary group
would be two-thirds - must have contested two-thirds of the seats in the House
of Assembly, elected three members, and be a registered party in accordance with
the Elections Act, 1991.
In other areas, another change is the election of a Speaker. In the future,
the Speaker of the House will be elected by the members of the Legislature, and
that election of a Speaker brings certain authority in a democratically elected
office. There are two changes that are consequential on this particular one
here. They are: the appeals of a Speaker's ruling, and also the authority to
expel members for disregarding the authority of the Chair. So there would not be
an appeal on the Speaker's ruling, and the Speaker has
certain authorities to expel a member for the rest of that day for disregarding
an authority of the Chair.
Times of daily sittings have been altered in the proposal put forth by the
Committee and subject, of course, to the House. It would be four days per week.
The three hours that would be lost on Friday would be added on to Monday,
Tuesday and Thursday of each week to allow a sitting from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and the regular 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. sitting
on Wednesday, which is Private Members' Day.
Also, there is provision for members' statements, which probably are common
in the House of Commons. The members can rise on a statement of interest or
concern to the district or certain matters of concerns to that member. They
would be allowed at the beginning of the day, to be first on the agenda for the
day, a one minute statement totaling no more than six minutes in total, which
means up to six members on any given day could be recognized to have issued a
member's statement. Right now leave must be given in
order to do that.
It is agreed that there should be a time limit on emergency debates, because
the nature of an emergency should have a certain amount of finality or
conclusion to it, and notice be given to the Speaker before the sitting resumes,
basically, of that particular motion for emergency debate.
As to Thursday's adjournment motion, or the Late Show as we call it, is
proposed by the Committee that that be eliminated. This would be add, for the
members' interest, another half hour on to debating time. If we look at a
normal day on Friday, to put it in prospective, there would normally be two
hours usually on Friday for debate after you take out Question Period,
Ministerial Statements or Petitions. You may have two hours for debate at
maximum, if you look on the average. In addition to that, w e
get that Question Period. That is one extra hour, really, for Friday which we
will have for debate, plus an extra half hour from Thursday, which would allow
at least a minimum of one-and-one-half hours of extra debating time within the
hours that are there, compared to the five day sitting we have right now.
Also, because of the procedures that have adopted from Great Britain on the
business of Supply, Ways and Means in the budget, they are arcane and
anachronistic. It is decided to make some changes to reduce the repetitiveness
and so on in certain stages moving in and out of committee, to streamline that
process there so we can expedite matters a little more.
Right across this country we are the only jurisdiction basically where, in
Petitions, you have someone move it, a second person could speak on it, and
someone from the opposite side of the House to speak on it. To bring it in line
with the nature, really, as it is intended, if you look at Beauchesne and any of
the particular references there, it should be restricted to presenting a
particular petition. It now would be presented by one individual with no other
speakers, and it is three minutes opposed to five, to bring it more in line with
the nature of how it should be done, and in line with all other jurisdictions, I
might add, across the country.
The parliamentary calendar is another issue of concern. Right now there is no
specific legislative time, or in our Standing Orders, in which we agree that the
House should sit at any particular time. Basically, it is on the call of the
Speaker and the Government House Leader to get business transacted. There are
certain changes being proposed here regarding minimum times. Right now there are
none in order to do business. The Committee is certainly recommending that in
the spring it would open on the second Monday of March and it would close one
week prior to the May 24 weekend, with a period off at Easter time from Holy
Thursday to two weeks following that. There would be a two-week break from early
March to the week prior to the May 24 weekend.
Right now, there is also no specific requirement for a fall session, so this
would also propose that there would be a minimum period set down in which the
House shall sit. We have one in the spring now, if this is accepted. The one in
the fall will be a minimum of four weeks, to adjourn not later than one week
prior to Christmas. Basically it sets in place at least a certain order. At
least people can plan when the Legislature is going to sit, they can make plans
if it is going to close, and it looks at the interests of members too from all
different parts of the Province, not eliminating a day without putting in added
extra time for debating. That was important. It allows members reasonable access
to their districts, especially people living in remote parts of the Province.
Mr. Speaker, I would like, in concluding, to just mention that the Committee
has been meeting for the past six months. There have been numerous meetings. I
would certainly like, on behalf of the Chair, the Member for Terra Nova, and all
the other members of the Committee, thank them for their time and effort in
putting this together. These are some of the most comprehensive changes we have
ever had since 1949 in our Standing Orders.
Thank you.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the Vice-Chairman, the hon. the Member for
Ferryland, has just tabled the report in the House of the Select Committee that
was put together last spring by the Legislature to look at the rules of the
House and to see that the changes were made.
I am about to move a motion which is some thirteen pages long, and I do not
intend to read that motion into the Order Paper. I just want to say that the
motion covers the topics that the hon. gentleman has put forward and that I give
notice that I will on tomorrow move that motion, that we adopt the practices
that have been put forward by him.
Let me say, if I could, for just a few minutes, that I would like to thank
the Chairman of the Committee who is unavoidably absent today. The Member for
Terra Nova is of course the dean of this House when it comes to parliamentary
procedure. When it comes to understanding the rules of this House, I would have
to say to you that I do not believe there is anybody that I know of who knows
the rules of this House or has a better feeling for parliament than the Member
for Terra Nova.
I have been in this House since 1979, and I believe it was in 1980 that there
were some major changes that were made by the then Government House Leader, Mr.
William Marshall, and the Opposition House Leader at the time, Edward Roberts,
to the Standing Orders. Since that time there have been numerous attempts, and
people have spent a lot of time, trying to get those rules changed to make them
more efficient and more effective for all of us. I want to thank this committee.
The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi served on that committee representing his
party. The Members for Topsail and the Member for Trinity North served on that
Committee. Who am I missing? At times, the Member for Humber East served on the
Committee.
This is indeed a day, I believe, that all of us, all three parties in the
House, have come together to do some of the things that it is necessary to do..
I would also say, in addition to what the vice-chair of the Committee has
just said, that we have asked the Clerk of the House and his staff - that before
we come back we hope to have those rules in place for when we call the House
back together. I would think it would probably be around the second week in
March, because that is what those rules say. Before the House comes back from
the Christmas break we have asked the Clerk and his staff to see that if the
rules pass the Legislature, if we get them done before this present session is
over, that the rules we have proposed and the practices that we have asked to be
included are put in a far better order than they are now in our present Standing
Orders, the green book. Because if you go to look for something in that green
book it is like getting in a jungle. So we have asked the Clerk that once we get
this done to see that indeed the Standing Orders are put in a fashion where
somebody can open up to an index and see exactly what they want to see.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce a motion to
bring the rules of the hon. gentlemen into effect. They will be on the Table for
anybody who cares to take a look at them.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the
Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 200
students of Beaconsfield High School. I will read the prayer of the petition:
We, the students of Beaconsfield High Schools, wish to petition the House of
Assembly to maintain a K to XII school system in the West End of St. John's.
While, democratically, we were not permitted to vote in the education reform
referendum, we, our parents, as well as the general public, were led to believe
that education reform would bring with it neighbourhood schools. Government is
not fulfilling their obligation as promised.
Mr. Speaker, the students who have signed this have walked out today. While
that is something that we cannot in this House of Assembly encourage, I
understand why the students have walked out. It is out of frustration. Those
students deserve a high school in the West End of St. John's, the residents of
the West End of St. John's which have growing communities. In my district
there has been a number of new housing starts over the past two or three years.
I know in Cowan Heights area there is new hou sing
development all the time. In the Kilbride area there are new housing
developments all of the time. It is a growing area, it is a growing part of the
city. To remove an institution that is already in place in that part of the city
is unbelievable. To remove an institution allowing children to go to school from
kindergarten through to graduation of high school in that area of the city is
unbelievable when it is a growing part of the city.
I am proud to stand here today and not only present the petition on behalf of
the students of Beaconsfield High School, but to support them in their petition.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the
Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today, and it is my pleasure to support the petition on behalf of the
students in St. John's West and as well on behalf of the parents who, when
they were asked to vote for reform, they were promised neighbourhood schools,
optimum programming and a lower pupil-teacher ratio.
None of this has happened in St. John's West. It cannot happen without the
commitment of government. I noticed that the Premier very conveniently on
February 8, 1999 said: That is a commitment I give today without hesitation.
That commitment was there then, but the Premier misled the people of the
Province and the people of St. John's West when he gave that commitment then,
and the commitment -
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: On a point of order.
I know the hon. lady does not mean to say that, but she cannot say the
Premier misled -
MS S. OSBORNE: I do.
MR. TULK: You do?
MS S. OSBORNE: Yes.
MR. TULK: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady cannot say what she just said,
that the Premier misled the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair will have to review what the hon. member has said and rule on it
later. The Chair will have to see the context in which the hon. member has used
the word misled and we will have to rule on it later.
MS S. OSBORNE: On February 8, 1999
the Premier said: That is a commitment I give today without hesitation. If the
commitment was there, then the people in St. John's West would not today be in
the position that they are in.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: The Minister of Education got up and spoke of treating all
the pupils in the Avalon East School Board equally. How about treating all the
children in the Province equally, when 12 per cent of $125 million goes to
Avalon East School Board when, in fact, they have one-third of the pupils in the
Province? Where is the fairness there?
When the people of the Province voted for reform, and when the people of St.
John's West voted for reform, they voted for neighbourhood schools. The
Minister of Education got up today and spoke about busing. There is no busing
for junior high school students. There is no busing for high school students. I
have had people call my office and say they cannot afford to pay for the busing
for their children. When they voted for reform, and when they thought they were
voting for neighbourhood schools, th ey should not have to
pay for busing for their children.
When the commitment was made - this is a news release made from the Premier's
Office - the commitment was made to provide what the consensus would be. Since
reform began the consensus of all the people in St. John's West is to retain
their high school. They are not looking for a high school. They have a high
school. They want to keep their high school. They do, however, need a primary
school because the primary children in St. John's West are going to school
where it has been demonstrated that ther e were mouse
droppings, there is mold and there are spores. They are in an unhealthy
environment. They cannot stay in that environment.
What the government has forced the Avalon East School Board to do is divide
and conquer: Okay, you can have this but you cannot have that, or if we give you
this we cannot give you that. The government has pitted the people of St. John's
West against each other. You can have a high school or you can have a renovated
high school or we can give you a high school in part of the area but not all of
the area. That is not what the people voted for. The people voted for
neighbourhood schools. They have a neighbourhood high
school. They have a neighbourhood junior high school. That is what they voted
for. That is what they want to retain.
They need a primary school to accommodate everybody, and I totally support
the students who have signed the petition, and the parents who have voted in
favor of reform, to retain their neighbourhood schools and not to take the high
school which they already have.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just rise to make a few comments with respect to the petition presented.
Certainly everybody understands when students and parents would always like to
have the best possible education available for their children as close as
possible to home. The difficulty that we always have is, again, on a theme that
I used last week and the week before with respect to the significance of words
and people deciding to choose certain phrases and to use them for their own
purposes.
Let's talk just for a minute, if we can, about the whole concept of
neighbourhood schools, because that was part of the whole debate about education
reform. Remember this, now. The notion was that you would go to a neighbourhood
school of the grade for which you are in school as determined by the school
board instead of - and this was what education reform and the vote was about -
leaving your neighbourhood and going to different places because of the religion
that you were. That is what the vote was about. The vote
was all about the fact that children who lived right next to each other, one
Protestant and one Catholic, one might go to a school in the neighbourhood if it
was the right religion and the other one might have gone completely across town
because they were a different religion.
It is very convenient to suggest that there was a debate promising
neighbourhood schools, because there was in the context that the school board
for every group of students in every age group would determine the closest
available school and would send every child to the same school regardless of
their religious denominational affiliation. That was what the whole of the
reform issue was about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I understand, and if I was in the position
myself I would use the argument to my own best advantage, but we should not, in
this particular Legislature, for political reasons try to suggest that there was
an outright promise made -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) the minister to stand in this House and talk
about this side of the House using (inaudible) political reasons when two days
before an election the Premier makes a statement to save his own political butt
in a region and does not live up the commitment made to the people in this
House!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: We are not going to take any lectures from this minister
about political (inaudible)! That I can tell him today!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to take his seat.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
No point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The reaction we just got proves exactly the point. The only real interest
opposite is to try and play politics with the issue instead of acknowledging
that they fully support it. Because everybody in this Legislature fully
supported the whole notion of not having denominationally based schools but
having neighbourhood schools for every grade, and that the school board, duly
elected for the first time in history, would determine which is the school
closest to your neighbourhood available for you in your age group and your class
group. That that would not be decided here in this Legislature but would be
decided by the duly elected school boards.
Just to make one other point along the same lines, the Opposition parties -
they know the difference - for political purposes try to suggest that the money
that was saved in education reform has not been reinvested in education. Any
dispassionate look at the budgets in education before reform and after reform
shows that the budget for education in K to XII is bigger today than it was
before reform. Not only were the savings reinvested in education, but more money
was actually added. The Opposition members, knowing the difference because they
can read and they can add up numbers on a piece of paper - they know that the
budget might have been $300 million three years ago and that it is $320 million
or $330 million today - will still, when it is convenient, make a speech to
suggest that the money that was saved was not reinvested in education.
It is unfortunate that we can be selective at times. I can certainly
understand the concerns of the parents and the students, Mr. Speaker. Their
school board will come to the best possible resolution on their behalf, I am
sure, here in St. John's with the Avalon East School Board.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order
26, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, Bill
43. I think the Minister of Mines and Energy adjourned the debate. I think he
might have twenty seconds left on that Bill and then he is about finished.
MR. SPEAKER: Order 26.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I realize that I have just a few brief moments
left with respect to this particular bill. I do not intend to use the time
today. I think the points that I wanted to make were made on Friday morning in
the debate and the discussion. I know there are other members who would like to
speak to this very important piece of legislation.
Just again, to make sure that we remember the proper context, all of us in
this Legislature voted for a bill in which we put in language about conflict of
interest for school board members. The courts themselves have ruled on both
different sides of the same issue. They have ruled that a school board member
who has a relative in a school that is being considered for closure or
realignment is in conflict. The courts, with a different judge, seeing the same
evidence, have ruled that a school board member who is ruling on a school that
is slated for realignment or closure with a relative in it is not in conflict.
Because there is confusion, even in the courts, and because of the fact that we
do not want to have the school boards, parents and other groups of school
councils continue on to another level of the court to see which one of the first
judges was right or wrong, we are proposing here language we certainly hope will
clarify the issue. Because there was no intent whatsoever to have a duly elected
school board member declared to be in conflict regardless of which particular
school arrangement they were debating as a duly elected school board member at
the time.
With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have participated in
debate. I am sure the minister and others will look forward to the rest of the
debate on this important amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to speak on
An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, to clarify the
issue of conflict of interest. It is disappointing that for so long the
confusion about the actual
interpretation of this
section was allowed to fester
and, in fact, affect decisions that were made to close particular schools. It
came as a great shock to individuals who had campaigned for election or were
elected to school boards representing the people of their community to find that
when the decision affecting the future of the school in their own community came
to the table they were not allowed to cast a vote to protect and save the very
school they had campaigned to join the school board in order to save.
It was used as a part of unfortunate community politics to disallow votes
that they thought would make a difference. In fact, many of the votes that were
influenced or affected by this type of decision and challenge for issues of
conflict of interest were very close votes; a matter of one vote in many cases -
one or two votes - determining whether or not a particular school was to close.
I know the minister and the government from time to time have talked about
the costs to the school boards in defending litigation. What about the cost to
the parents? What about the cost to the communities; that you have to hire
lawyers to take matters before the Supreme Court out of their own personal funds
in order to try and right the wrongs that were in this legislation by virtue of
the legislation before the House?
What happened, of course, as everyone knows, was that people were ruled out
of order to vote when they had a child in a school that was affected by a
decision. That was deemed to be a conflict of interest by legal opinions given
to the school boards, in some cases. It certainly was ruled by one court to
agree that it was a conflict of interest, and by another court not. The
confusion was allowed to fester. Instead of clarifying the issue as soon as it
arose, the minister waited until now to bring it before the House. However, it
does need to be clarified and I am glad that the legislation is here and
certainly support it.
While we are on the topic of schools, the whole issue of what the referendum
was all about now appears to be distorted by government, by the Minister of
Mines and Energy who just spoke, rewriting history as it were, to suggest that
what people voted for was not neighborhood schools, and the concept of
neighborhood schools, and certainly once again shocked by the government's
response to the
interpretation of the Schools Act are the people of the West End
of St. John's. The people of the West End of St. John's are shocked by the
minister's
interpretation of what the referendum was all about. Certainly
those students who go to Beaconsfield High School, who had a neighborhood
school, a high school in their neighborhood, feel very betrayed by this
government when they are being told that their school will be closed to make way
for an elementary school and they will be required to be bused - at their
expense, I might add. That was not part of the early debate, that those students
who will now be forced to travel to other parts of St. John's to go to
school...
The minister talked today in Question Period about the great bus system we
have in St. John's. Well, that great bus system costs money to go on; and
these students or their parents are going to have to pay that money because they
live in St. John's, for no other reason. If they lived in Mount Pearl of if
they lived in Labrador City, or if they lived anywhere else in the Province,
they would not have to pay for buses but they are going to have to pay out of
their own pockets, or their parents are going to have to pay for them, to be
bused to other parts of town. That is grossly unfair. It is discrimination, in
fact, against students by virtue of their place of residence in the capital
city, and I think that is grossly unfair. It has been going on far too long and,
in fact, is a disgrace to democracy to treat students in St. John's
differently than students in every other part of Newfoundland and Labrador, to
require them to pay to go on buses to get to school when that is not done
anywhere else.
The whole issue of the school referendum was about the issue of community
schools in rural Newfoundland, and neighborhood schools in the capital city and
in urban areas of St. John's. To suggest, as the minister did today, that when
they are looking at a community they are looking at the whole district. When
they look at a consensus, they are not looking at a consensus of a neighborhood
or an area which could be a school feeder area; they are looking at the entire
district. That is ridiculous in the extreme, I say to the
minister, to suggest that in fact a community consensus, when they talk about
the Avalon East Board, involves the entire Avalon East Board with eighty-three
schools and with 33,000 students, that there must be a consensus of that group
to determine the wishes of a group with respect to a school. That was clearly
not the intention of anybody in this Province when it came to deciding on
whether they supported the referendum or not. They felt their chance of having a
community school was heightened by virtue of an education reform system that
would not have students classified by denomination but in fact would be
classified by grade, neighbourhood, location and community as opposed to
denomination into which they were born.
Mr. Speaker, the idea of reform was to make these schools more accessible and
available to all the students and, in fact, to make it more possible to have
neighbourhood schools because you would not have to have schools for only one
denomination. That has been turned on its head by a government that refuses to
recognize the importance of a high school for St. John's West and, in fact,
the role that Beaconsfield itself has played. It seems that certain high schools
have been doomed by this decision. B rother Rice High
School, for example, and Beaconsfield were doomed as a result of decisions made
after the school reform.
In fact, when money was made available for new school construction and a
portion of it went to the Avalon East School Board, there was certainly money
there. If the board is able to find money to make major renovations and, in
fact, change a high school to an elementary school, surely a rearrangement of
that money with some additional funds from the Department of Education would
adequately find a new primary school for the St. John's West area to replace
St. Augustine's, which seems to be the problem i n the
first place. Perhaps concentration on that area would be more important.
The minister talked about Booth being closed possibly as a result of keeping
Beaconsfield High School opened and rearranging other students. That may be. I
understand Booth was on the list for closure because of the very poor quality of
its building. For some reason, that was decided to stay open and to change
Beaconsfield High School instead.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has responsibility for students throughout the
Province, and that includes the area of St. John's and in particular St. John's
West. Yet, the minister has been steadfast in her refusal to recognize the
validity of the request for the people of St. John's West to have a school in
their neighbourhood, as they have had for the last twenty-five years.
With that, Mr .Speaker, I conclude my remarks and say that I support the
amendment to the Schools Act because it is necessary to clarify the issue of
confusion that waned for far too long.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): If the minister speaks now, she will close the
debate.
The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I talked about what the purpose of
the amendment was and I think it is pretty clear what the intent of the
amendment is, so I would like to close debate.
On motion, a bill,
An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House tomorrow. (Bill 43)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before calling the next order of business, I would
move that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House not adjourn at 5:00
p.m.
All those in favour, aye'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: Opposed?
Motion carried.
MR. TULK: Has that motion been put?
MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order
23, Bill 41,
An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Law Society Of
Newfoundland.
We are so pleased to have the Minister of Justice introduce this momentous
and important piece of legislation.
Motion, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The
Law Society of Newfoundland. (Bill 41)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. H. HODDER: Introduce yourself now, Paul. (Inaudible).
MR. DICKS: Harvey Hodder.
Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the hon member opposite, that is probably the
reason the House is closing so early, because we were not here to entertain each
other.
Mr. Speaker, the Law Society Act is the act that governs the practice of law
in the Province. The premise of it is that there has to be a level of public
protection. If you think about it, we have registered nurses acts, medical acts
and so on, because the public have, I suppose, a right to an assurance that a
person who holds himself or herself out as a member of the Law Society has
certain qualifications to provide the services that are necessary and that one
has the professional background to do so. The other thing that carries with that
is that the public often expects that if there is a problem with the services
provided, be they medical, legal or otherwise, that the governing society - in
this case the Law Society - has standards such as insurances and disciplinary
bodies that would ensure that the practitioners themselves do it in a skillful
manner.
What this act essentially does is set up the operations of the Law Society,
and also sets standards that barristers and solicitors are to meet. There are
two different groups of people, essentially, certainly in England, less
(inaudible) so in Newfoundland, but the people who go to court are called
barristers and those who do the documentary work and so on are called
solicitors. Because of that distinction, the act sets up two areas of practice.
One is what a solicitor's practice would be, and who may do that; and,
secondly, what a barrister's work would be.
The manner in which it does so is that it sets up prohibitions and says that
nobody except a solicitor may do a certain number of listed items, and nobody
but a barrister may do a certain number of actions which basically consist of
matters such as appearing before court and before federal tribunals and so on.
Those are fairly directly set forth in different parts of the act. I might
refer you, first of all - the authority to practice law is in
section 76 of the
act and sets forth who an individual shall be, and other parts of the act set
forth the restrictions on what a person who is not a lawyer may not do.
Earlier in the act, in the definition section, it sets forth what the
solicitor's practice will be and what may do it. For example, in
section 2.(2)
it sets up what the practice of law is, including the practices of barrister or
solicitor, appearing as counsel or advocate, and it goes on to establish what
exactly those duties consist of, and talks about the sort of documents and so on
that lawyers draft and prepare. It also says what it does not include, because
that is important.
The reason I mention this is that there is some area of practice related to
the law, close to the law, which is considered and called a paralegal practice.
That can be carried on by individuals who are not members of the Bar, and is
generally carried on by those individuals under the supervision of a lawyer
and/or a law firm. We do not have a separate act governing what are called
paralegals, but neither does any other Province in the country.. There is some
concern, and we may wish to address that at another time, as to whether or not
that sort of practice should be regulated.
The governing idea being that the public has to be safeguarded from
individuals who would hold themselves out as capable or interested in engaging
in services or providing services that they are technically not competent to do.
One might say that some lawyers are engaging in services that they are
technically not competent to provide, but nevertheless they have to meet certain
standards provided by the Law Society.
In any event, I believe the act is self-explanatory if one did take the time
to read it. I think I have covered most of the bases. There is a reference here
to the Law Foundation. What that is, essentially, is a charitable foundation
that is set up. It derives its income from the interest amounts that would be
payable on lawyers' trust accounts and is remitted to the Law Foundation, if
my recollection serves me correctly, quarterly, and the law firms are advised as
to what that amount is. The Law S ociety audits. It is
helpful for them as well to know what the amounts are.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the act sets forth the appointment of
people to the foundation and the purposes for which the trust may be used. These
include law reform, legal education and research, assistance to the Legal Aid
Society, law libraries, provision of scholarships and so on. It is set up
independent of government. It is a trust and it is administered by this group of
individuals who make their decisions about how best to use the income that they
derive from the interest payments on these trust accounts.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would be happy to answer any questions. I don't believe it is
controversial. There are no great variations and departures from neither policy
approach nor drafting from the previous Law Society Act but there are some
matters that are (inaudible). I think it mostly speaks to a different age that
we are in. It is probably a little more precise about what our practice is in
part.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the
Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand to just make a few comments with respect to Bill 41,
An Act To Revise
The Law Respecting The Law Society Of Newfoundland.
I have had an opportunity over the past several days to review this
legislation in some detail. Furthermore, I have had an opportunity to speak with
a number of individuals who have been active in the development of this new
bill, in particular, the treasurer of the Law Society and also individuals who
worked on the committee leading to the bill that we now have before us. I think
it is fair to say that this legislation is good legislation. What will make it
an effective piece of legislation is that it is the result of a fairly active
and energetic effort on the part of many individuals who saw the need for some
changes with respect to the existing law in the governance of the practice of
law in this Province.
What the legislation does, as the minister indicated, is it reviews in
particular and addresses the issue of interjurisdictional practice of law. As we
now know, there are many regional law firms in this Province. In fact, the trend
seems to be that we see a growing number of firms, large firms, that are
regional and perhaps eventually national in scope. Furthermore, we see changes
to the discipline provisions, and what I think is very important is that we see
now the recognition of the role of the l ayperson
with respect to dealing with discipline matters as it affects issues that come
before it from time to time. In particular, we are talking about Committees,
section 42 of the proposed bill - and I will just refer to a part of it, under
Section 42 - which states:
(3) The discipline committee shall consist of not
less than 30 members and not less than 15 persons who are not members who shall
be appointed by the minister. So, certainly an attempt I think by this
proposed legislation to ensure t hat the layperson has a
contribution to make with respect to the important issue of discipline.
The minister referenced the Law Foundation, and it is indeed an important
part of the function of the Law Society generally. It is a charitable
organization in the true sense of the word. When we look at
Section 67(1) it
refers to the objects of the foundation which talks about (
a) legal
education and legal research; (
b) law reform; (
c) assistance in funding the
Newfoundland Legal Aid Commission as established under the Legal Aid Act; (
d) the establishment, operation and maintenance of a legal referral service for the
residents of the province... Indeed, it is an agency, I guess a subagency of
the Law Society itself, whose purpose is to assist, from an educational point of
view and a contribution point of view, in helping the people of the Province
understand more about the practice of law and the role of lawyers within our
jurisdiction.
I have the privilege of serving as Chair of one of the subcommittees - it is
the high school essay competition - and what that is, in fact, is on a yearly
basis all high school students in the Province are invited in participating in
an essay competition dealing with issues of public interest, and from a general
point of view, issues as it relates to the practice of law generally. It is
indeed indicative of the type of work that the Foundation does. In fact, prizes
are awarded, prizes to the winning students and also to the winning schools, for
the purposes of the purchasing of research materials and reference materials in
the school library.
I am not going to prolong debate on this particular piece of legislation,
only to say that I have reviewed it carefully. I have spoken with those
individuals who were significant in the development of this particular bill, and
it is clear to see that this is a result of a lot of work, a lot of effort, and
I applaud the individuals who have played a role in the development of this
piece of legislation.
One final point I would like to make is this. I believe all Members of the
House have received correspondence on behalf of the Paralegal Association of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and there still appears to be some confusion as to
really what the role of paralegals are in our Province. I know the
correspondence that was forwarded to members on behalf of the Paralegal
Association of Newfoundland and Labrador basically has requested that government
give consideration to the regulation of paralegals within our Province. This is
certainly important from the point of view that it would be of assistance not
only to the paralegals and to the members of the Law Society at large, but
indeed the public as well, so that the public will have a far greater
understanding as to what the role of a paralegal is, so that there is no
confusion, and that both paralegals and members of the legal profession will
understand clearly what it is that a paralegal may and may not do.
It is certainly important, I think, that this government in the near future
give serious consideration and attention to the fact that the paralegals are out
there. In fact, there are a number of private institutions that we know of that
offer this course. Individuals spend a lot of money in the training to become a
paralegal, and there appears to me to be a lack of guidance and definition as to
what their role is. This is an opportunity, as I see it, for government, now
that the new legislation with respect to the Law Society and the governance of
the profession is before us, to answer the concerns as raised by the Association
ultimately for the benefit of the public at large, so the public at large will
have a much greater understanding as to what that particular role is.
In conclusion, the legislation that we are now debating appears to be a move
in the right direction. It deals with important issues facing the legal
profession and the practice of law in this Province, and it tends to codify and
organize some of the deficiencies that tended to exist in the previous act.
We on this side will support this legislation fully. It meets the needs of
the profession and, as I have indicated on a couple of occasions already, it is
the result of a lot of effort and a lot of energy by a group of interested
individuals. I support and congratulate their efforts in this regard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to speak on Bill 41,
An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Law
Society of Newfoundland. I also do not need to say very much about this bill,
other than that it has been the product of a lot of work, particularly by
members of the Law Society and benchers in reviewing the act and bringing some
of it up to speed in areas where it needed to be revised.
We now have over 700 practicing lawyers in Province of Newfoundland who are
members of the Law Society. It is important that the law regarding the operation
of the Law Society - the way that the Law Society governs itself as one of the
important self-governing professions and its responsibilities that come with
that to protect the public - reflect the desire of the public and of the
government and this House of Assembly to ensure that members of the public are
properly served by practicing lawyers, and that when they conduct themselves in
a manner that is inappropriate, dishonest or unprofessional there is a realistic
and real way of dealing with them through the Law Society. That has been
accomplished in this legislation.
One of the new features in this legislation was to remove the anomalies that
existed before when there was some confusion about what the role of the
discipline committee, or a panel, in fact was sitting and hearing a complaint
against a member: whether the panel were actually making recommendations with
respect to not only to the guilt or innocence, or whether a complaint was upheld
or to be dismissed - that was part of their recommendation to benchers, who
would then impose a penalty - or whether or no t
part of the committee's job or the panel's job was to recommend a penalty as
well if they had found that a member of the society was in breach of
professional misconduct rules.
That has been a confusion for some time. It is now clarified in this
legislation which decides that the discipline committee, or a panel of the
committee, in fact, has the power to make a binding decision not only as to
whether or not the complaint has been upheld, but as to what the penalty might
be. That is then a penalty imposed on a member of the Law Society. It is one
that can be appealed to the benches or appealed further to the court. In fact,
the decision is the decision of the panel.
Mr. Speaker, having served on the discipline committee for some years, and as
chair of a number of panels, it is certainly a welcomed change to clarify that
situation of circumstances and give the panels who are hearing the evidence and
hearing the arguments firsthand, in fact, the power to make a decision as to
whether or not a complaint is upheld and as to what the penalty might be. That
is a very important change.
It is also to be noted that included in the panels who are hearing the cases,
in addition to the lawyers who are members of the discipline committee, there
will also be layperson who is a member of the discipline committee and lay
people - members of the public - who are not practicing lawyers would also have
a say in the discipline of members of the Law Society.
That is an important change, Mr. Speaker, and one that I certainly welcome
based on my experience on the discipline committee of the Law Society as to have
a clarified method of dealing with complaints before the society for misconduct
of members. That is certainly an improvement that is to be recommended.
I understand that the Law Society itself had a fairly strong hand in
assisting with the drafting of this bill and it is in conformity with the White
Paper on self-governing institutions. With that in mind, I would say nothing
further but to support the legislation. The legislation appears to be in order
and in keeping with the modernization of the legal profession and the new
approach towards self-governing professions in providing for non-professionals
to participate actively in the governing bodies and also in the disciplining
bodies of the profession.
I understand also that the legislation does provide for some control over
paralegals until they have any legislation governing their professions or their
ability to act in certain respects. That is important, too, that as long as
there is no other legislation they will be subject to the provisions of this
legislation in terms of how their own activities are prescribed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.
The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DICKS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate my colleagues' comments in favour of the bill. They are
familiar with it and they have read it. I endorse the comments they have made as
well. I think it is a matter of bringing this bill up to date with the Law
Foundation, and they mentioned disciplinary provisions as well. On that basis,
Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.
On motion, a bill,
An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Law Society Of
Newfoundland, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the
Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 41)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of members in the House, the way
that I intend to go down the Order Paper is: Orders 24, 25, 26, leave 27 for the
present time and do 28, which would be all of the bills that the Minister of
Justice has to put.
I presently call Order 24,
An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.
(Bill 40)
Motion, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The Teachers' Act.
(Bill 40)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
These are a series of minor amendments to the Teachers' Pension Act. I will
point out for hon. members probably ones that are a little more substantial.
There was first of all an issue as to religious - you will remember that we
reformed our agreement with the teachers so that the teachers' pensions would
be integrated with the CPP. What that essentially means is that the government
pension is rolled back by an amount, not the full amount but by a certain
percentage of what the person receives in CPP . It turned
out - and it came to our attention after that agreement was made with the
teachers - that members of religious orders did not contribute to the Canada
Pension Plan but were caught by this.
What this
section 1.(2) of the act does is, first of all, it repeals the
current
section of the act and provides for a situation in which they would not
be rolled back because essentially they are ineligible for Canada Pension Plan
benefits. It would be inequitable for us to take away -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. DICKS: The hon. member raised a good question. Those who would be
inside would not have been members of the Canada Pension for that period while
they were teachers so they would not have accumulated benefits. When they left,
I would presume - well, if they continued working they would be obligated to be
members of the Canada Pension Plan and their service would be calculated from
that point forward. If they work through to retirement, your rollback in your
government pension plan is calculated as a percentage of the amount of Canada
Pension that you receive so they would not suffer severely either. It really is
related to the amount of Canada Pension you receive but what this does is ensure
that members of religious orders who get no Canada Pension do not suffer a
rollback of the provincial government pension. We believe that is a fair way to
do it.
Section 1.(1) is really just a restatement of the manner in which the
teachers' pensions benefits are calculated. The reason for this is that it is
required in accordance with the regulation of the Income Tax Act. It does not
change the pension entitlements of teachers; it is just another way that it has
to stated in order to be technically compliant. It does not change the benefit
in any way, nor the accumulations to date.
I think that essentially covers the two main issues. Like most income tax and
pension calculation acts, they are fairly detailed. Trying to set forth in
language what is essentially a numerical exercise is a little difficult, but if
hon. members have any particular concerns or questions I will answer them when I
close debate at second reading.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We, on this side, have reviewed this piece of legislation and we have
consulted with the Newfoundland Teachers' Association. We are satisfied that
this particular piece of legislation is consistent with the issues that have
been bargained by the NLTA on behalf of its members. I do understand as well
that there has been consultation with the ministry relative to those who were in
the teaching profession and also members of religious orders. That has always
been an item of concern within the teaching p rofession. It
has always been a matter that has been brought up on many, many occasions, and
many attempts to resolve it. This particular matter, as it involves pension
benefits for those of religious orders, is now resolved and they have not been
negatively affected by their failure to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan so
the calculations are precisely for this particular group of people.
We recognize that when the present changes were made to the Teachers'
Pension Plan that not everybody in the teaching profession was in favor;
however, we also have to recognize that the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers'
Association went out and presented their case for the changes to all the
membership, that a vote was held and that the majority of the teachers of this
Province voted for the changes which are enacted here. On that basis, because
the membership voted for those changes, therefore we o n
this side find ourselves quite willing to say that we will support this
legislation because it is what the membership wanted and which they have agreed
to by majority of vote; however, we recognize that not every member of the
teaching profession would have been satisfied to the extent that they would have
liked.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side merely want to say that we view this as being
minor amendments and that while we could go on for some time, it would not
improve the bill and probably would hold up debate unnecessarily. We give
support our support on this side for these amendments.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice.
If the hon. the minister speaks now, he will close debate.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the support of the hon. members. They have done their homework
and understand the nature of the bill, and on that basis I will certainly move
second reading.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On motion, a bill,
An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.
(Bill 40)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order
25,
An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991". (Bill 39) -
the Minister of Finance.
Motion, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The Public Service
Pensions Act, 1991. (Bill 39)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This act deals with technical aspects of the Public Service Pensions Act.
What it provides for in essence is, in some cases, a calculation of benefits
that a person receives, and it is called commuted value. What that means -
commuted value is the amount of money necessary to put aside, invested, so that
the cash flows from that on a monthly basis would be sufficient to pay the
amount of pension required to the end of your life. Now the commuted value is
not calculated on an individual basis. Let me rephrase that. It is calculated on
an individual basis but it based on actuarial tables. What they would do, for
instance, in our Chamber, they would assume they we, as men, would live to age
seventy-seven and would then commute the value of our pension on that basis.
Now, on an individual basis, of course, is not accurate because we all don't
die on our birthday at age seventy-seven; but, as a group, that is the life
expectancy for men so the cost of the plan and the value of any person who wants
to acquire benefits is calculated in that way because over time and on the law
of averages, and on an annuitized basis, that is the amount that we need in
order to pay all the monies out.
Where that has value to us is to deal with certain situations. I will start
with clause 7, perhaps, because that was one that took us the longest time to
come to a reasonable solution about, and that has to do with the division of
pension benefits upon a marriage breakdown. That was rather complex for a number
of reasons. One was that it called for sharing of benefits when a couple
divorced or separated. The difficulty was, of course, that the spouses'
husbands and wives almost invariably have different ages. Secondly, one spouse
being lower than the other, the question then is, do you value that gross amount
or that capitalized amount on the basis of the pension holder's pension.
To take an example - I do not mean to sound sexist, Mr. Speaker - the common
case is that a man is married to a younger woman, whatever the years may be.
What we found was that it worked to women's disadvantage because the value of
the pension to the man - let's say if someone fifty-five years of age got
divorced, and his wife was age fifty, if we calculated the commuted value to
him, it would result in a smaller lump sum to the spouse; and it was complicated
further in the case of women because not on ly are they
generally younger than their male spouses but they also happen to live longer.
So, the amount of money necessary for that person to enjoy, say, a 50 per cent
benefit under the pension, would and should have been higher because she would
enjoy it - if enjoy is the right word - for a longer time and also had acquired
the right at a younger age.
Believe me, we had a very, very long discussion on this both in Cabinet - I
was lobbied by two individuals in particular who were concerned with how it
affected them. Eventually, I must say, the solution we arrived at is this one:
Part of it is that we use a joint table of lives so that the value is not any
less for the younger spouse, who is invariably female in most cases. I should
not say invariably but often the case. I should say, it is interesting that our
workforce is disproportionately female so, to some extent, there may be a
corresponding benefit to each sex because I think our workforce is about 54 per
cent or 55 per cent female.
In terms of the bill, that was a more difficult part of it. I just want to
say to hon. members that we really conferred essentially over a period of
year-and-a-half with people who are actually affected. Because we did have
circumstances where women, in particular, would have seen a drop of some $2,000
or $3,000 in what were modest pensions upon division. I know one in particular,
and I will not use the name, but this person would have seen a drop in her share
of the pension from about $25,000 down to $21,000, and another one from $13,000
down to $11,000. At those levels of income, those are substantial, and I do
happened to know that they are satisfied with this, and do feel that their
lobbying worked , and I think they were very helpful in the end in doing this.
The other aspects of this are more straightforward. They deal with the
valuation when people leave the public service and then come back to it.
Essentially what these provide is that if you now wish to purchase service where
you have been out of government and you come back, you have to purchase it at
this commuted value. You are not going to get a benefit so that you could
purchase at a lesser amount than it actually takes to pay your pension, and we
have different clauses that provide for that.
We also have enhanced portability. One aspect that we do have is this. People
move from government service, say, to a utility in this Province, or to Ottawa
or whatever, so it is necessary for us to ensure that individuals don't at the
end of their working lives end up in a circumstance where they do not have
enough money to live on. If they leave us and go to another employer, we will
transfer to that new pension plan the commuted value that their pension is
worth. That would be based on your age, the number of
years you have been in our pension, what value you have acquired, and
essentially it is like an annuity. This would be an amount that you would have
to set aside now, given a presumed rate of return of - perhaps 6 per cent, 7 per
cent or 8 per cent - that would commence payments when you reach your normal
retirement age. I suppose the average in government would probably be around
fifty-five years.
These set forth, again, in terms, what a terminating employee is, how we go
about finding the commuted value and so on, and what is included in that
service. You will find another provision here relating to what it must go into,
life income fund and locked in retirement account. The reason for this is that
generally throughout Canada there is what they call a vesting period and there
is a lock in period. Once an individual attains a certain age, and have been a
member of a pension plan for, I think, ten years, they cannot then take all the
money out. That is really to protect ourselves against doing something foolish.
You might question why government chose to do that, but we certainly chose to do
it in the cases of pensions. Depending on your point of view, you might argue we
should not do it here or we should do it more elsewhere.
In any event, I think that covers the policy that we have adopted here. These
are, as I say, several substantial measures, I do not mean to infer that they
are not, but they set forth a process of entitlement, transferability, and also
portability that is set forth in various provisions. I think that is fairly
common. The only other thing I should mention is that we have a new
section that
provides for a pre-retirement death benefit on the commuted value basis again.
So in most cases, this act speaks to circumstances where an individual is
leaving government, his or her pension is being wound up, transferred or
terminated, and in some cases a portion may be terminated because he or she is
dividing it with a spouse. That part of it, as I say, gave us the most trouble.
I'm pleased to say that over a period of long consultations we have evolved
this particular methodology which has proven to be very satisfactory for those
individuals affected.
I know I've been in touch with my colleague opposite and I am sure he would
be happy to support this, or at least give us his thoughts on that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, we have consulted on this particular piece of legislation. It is a
pleasure, really, to see the changes that have been made, particularly as they
apply to those people whose marriages are discontinued. Upon the marriage
breakdown, women in particular found that they were disadvantaged in the way the
pension arrangement was made.
We have had extensive consultations with people who have lobbied on behalf of
those people, and we have dealt directly with them from our side of the House,
as have, I'm sure, the department officials in the ministry. We support the
changes that have been put forward. That would mean that mostly women, as the
minister has said, will not be disadvantaged. Also, we used to have a situation
here, particularly as it applied to some of the political pensions, whereby if
the pensioner died then the former spouse's pension would cease altogether. So
you would end up with a situation where there was a potential for a person who
had been in a marriage for a considerable number of years and then, when the
pension was being received upon the retirement of the pensionable person, mostly
the male, but then when that male died, very often if the marriage had broken
down then the former spouse's pension benefits would stop altogether.
That was deemed to be very unfair and very unconscionable actually, and there
have been changes made. Now these individuals will not be required to come to
government or other agencies with cap in hand, you might say, seeking to secure
a benefit for themselves in order to be able to maintain a standard of living
that might be deemed to be satisfactory and acceptable.
The changes to
section 7 are encouraging. I acknowledge that the officials in
the minister's department have been fairly helpful and have been very happy to
answer the questions we put forward. We on this side do not have any substantive
difficulties. I could however, and should before I sit down, make note again of
the public service pension benefits. While I will not elaborate, I will assume
the minister will assume that I have given a lengthy dissertation on public
service pensions. The fact is that these pensioners deserve to be protected by
government. While we are doing some work here now, we also bring the minister's
attention to the fact that many of the former servants of the Province have not
been adequately looked after. While the benefits that were announced in last
year's budget are a step in the right direction, in terms of getting support
for all pensioners who are on a low income -
MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much for the encouragement. I was about to
sit down in a few moments, but now I have such encouragement from the Minister
of Fisheries and Aquaculture that I am now going to have to continue for a
longer period of time. I was just going to announce that I was about to clue up
my comments here, but the great encouragement of the Minister of Fisheries
brought to my attention the fact that he is part of a government that has put
the boots to public service pensioners.
Mr. Speaker, I am putting on the record my concerns for public service
pensioners and the fact that we believe there should be more done for these
people until we can get some kind of a system in place whereby indexing will
apply. I do believe that in the future there will be an indexing system but it
will not be retroactive. It is not fair that we have indexing retroactively
applied at an expense to the current workforce that are governed by the Public
Service Pension Plan. We do think that the gove rnment
has a responsibility to do a little more than they have been doing for public
service pensioners. I look forward to the minister, who I know to be a very kind
and caring person, in next year's budget trying to persuade his more reticent
colleagues over there as to the wisdom of looking after our public servants in
their retirement.
With these few comments, and in spite of the encouragement of the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture for me to continue on for a great lengthy period of
time, I will put these few comments on the record and say to the minister that I
am very much pleased with the coverage that has been given to persons who are
affected by marriage breakdowns. I also bring to his attention as well that we
have to do a little more about the portability of pensions, particularly as we
have working arrangements with other provinces, particularly Ontario, where we
have a lot of our people transferring. The portability of pensions is an issue
that has not been totally resolved, but I do believe there is a committee within
the bureaucracy trying to make some headway on that matter.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to speak for a few minutes on Bill 39,
An Act To Amend The Public
Service Pensions Act, 1991. It would not be right to let an opportunity go by to
remind the government as to how it is treating its own pensioners. There are two
areas I want to talk about. One, of course, is the well- known one where
government has failed to increase the pensions of those who had been expecting
on an annual basis and had, for many years, received an increase in their
pensions commensurate with the increase given to public sector workers. This is
a practice that was stopped by the Liberal government in 198