Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 3 December 2002 (44th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 39)
2002-12-03
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 3, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 39
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize eight
volunteer rescuers, and one member of the Canadian Coast Guard, who were
recently awarded medals from the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary.
The recipients are: Charles Roberts of St. John's, who received the
Administrative Excellence Medal; Aubrey Wells of Fortune and Arthur Pierce of Harbour Breton, received the Operational Merit Medal; Winston Pitcher of Burin
Bay Arm and Harry Strong of Old Perlican, both received Leadership Medals; Hugh
Pittman of Englee and Steve Daoust of Prescott, Ontario, both received the
Exemplary Service Medal. Mr. Daoust was also presented with the commendation by
the Commissioner of the Coast Guard, Mr. John Adams.
Also, Mr. Speaker, each year there is a Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary
Competition in which members from all over the Province compete in a series of
events to see who has the best rescue and survival skills in the Province. The
participants would have to participate in a series of events, which included
first aid, rescues at sea, searching for missing persons at sea, and how to
react in emergency situations. This year, the winners were a team from the
Northern Peninsula. The team consisted of Wade Saunders of St. Lunaire-Griquet,
Chris Foley of Conche, and Randy Patey of Port au Choix. All of these awards
were presented during an award ceremony in Marystown earlier this fall.
Mr. Speaker, I would like the Members of this House to join with me as I
extend my congratulations to these individuals for their recent awards for their
work with the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this House today to congratulate the Britannia United Church on the
occasion of their 100 th Anniversary.
The Britannia United Church has been a magnificent landmark as well as the
centre of worship in the community of Britannia on Random Island for the past
100 years. When it was built in 1902, the approximate construction cost was a
mere $2,000. By today's standards that would seem like a very insignificant
amount, but in 1902, considering the size of that community when they had to do
community fundraisers, it was a significant amount.
Looking back over the history of Britannia United Church we see that it was
without a bell until 1905, and without any electricity for the first
thirty-eight years of its history. It was not until 1930 that a new lighting
system was installed.
A few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of being able to attend
their 100 th Anniversary dinner celebration. This church has been, and
continues to be, a very special sanctuary for all who have been a part of it
throughout the years. This was particularly noticeable when I talked to the many
former residents who had returned from different parts of Newfoundland and
Labrador to share in the weekend celebration. The ways in which this church have
enriched the lives of generations of parishioners was very evident that night as
people shared their memories of the special events in their lives that all
centered around this place of worship.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all of the hon. members in this House today to join with
me in congratulating Britannia United Church on celebrating their 100 th
birthday and 100 th Anniversary and contribution to the community of
Britannia on Random Island.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Marine 2002 show is the largest fishing and marine industries exhibition
in Atlantic Canada, and it was held in St. John's at the Mile One Stadium on
the 21, 22 and 23 of this month.
This years show was the biggest ever, with 172 booths, and it attracted
exhibitors from Iceland, the United States, and all across Canada. It consisted
of an impressive range of products and services, which varied from a pair of
rubber boots right up to the big ticket items such as diesel engines and
sophisticated marine technology. It also showcased a boat display, in which
tours were provided of the vessels at the waterfront. The purpose of this was to
show the public the newest fishing vessels in the Province.
This show offered those involved in the industry and the general public an
opportunity to view many products and services. Shows like this highlight the
importance of marine industries to the economy of this Province.
Mr. Speaker, I would like the members of this House to join me, as I
congratulate the organizers of this show on another successful year and I wish
the organizers all the best in the upcoming new year.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. LANGDON: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate the students and teachers of St. Boniface All
Grade School in Ramea.
This past weekend I attended the Ramea Economic Development Corporation,
Annual General Meeting. While there, I spoke with a teacher, Mr. Clyde Domine,
who told me that the eighty-seven students and ten teachers are completely
smoke-free. This was later confirmed by the school Principal, Mr. Leo Freeborn.
Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the hazards of smoking. They are undeniable,
but unfortunately some young people still choose to take up this harmful habit.
In Ramea, the students have decided that smoking is not for them. They have
chosen a healthier lifestyle and in turn a longer future.
Teachers are educators of academics and life skills. I would like to commend
the Principal and teachers for setting a healthy example for the students to
emulate.
Studies show that 85 per cent of adults who smoke, start before the age of
sixteen. In choosing not to smoke as young people, these students have a better
chance of never starting.
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that all members of this hon. House will join me
in congratulating the students and commending the teachers of St. Boniface All
Grade School in Ramea for choosing to be totally smoke-free.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to advise hon.
members that the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, known as the C-NOPB,
has granted an increase to Terra Nova's annual production rate. This
production increase will see Terra Nova's average daily oil production rate of
100,600 barrels per day increased to 150,000 barrels per day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: The decision also allows the C-NOPB to further increase the
daily average rate up to a maximum of 200,000 barrels per day after the
consideration of appropriate regulatory, administrative and technical criteria.
This production increase for Terra Nova will be a positive thing for this
Province. The Terra Nova royalty rate increases as production increases, or as
the project becomes more profitable. This production rate increase will trigger
the higher royalty rates earlier than expected, and result in substantially more
royalty revenues for the Province. Under the current assumptions -
AN HON. MEMBER: ( Inaudible).
MR. MATTHEWS: I would say, stayed tuned.
Under the current assumptions this is estimated to be an additional $300
million to $400 million over the life of the project, and this does not include
any potential new discoveries in the Far East Block of the field. In addition,
improved profits will likely result in higher provincial tax revenues and
increased investment in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, in their application to the C-NOPB, the Terra Nova proponents
have stated that this production increase will have minimal effect on the life
of the project. After reviewing the application and the facts, government agrees
with this position. Government expects employment to be unaffected by this
change.
Mr. Speaker, the proponent, as well as the Province, wish to see this project
become as profitable as possible. This will provide further incentive for
industry to explore and develop new projects, leading to new and sustained
benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It also sends a positive
message to our industry partners that this Province is indeed a good place in
which to invest.
Mr. Speaker, government believes that this is a win-win situation for both
the proponents and government. Government will receive positive benefits to the
provincial Treasury and increased investment. The proponents will be given the
opportunity to generate more capital to invest in the provincial interests that
they hold. Government will continue to support initiatives such as this when the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador are singularly the beneficiaries.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly do detect a different tone in the minister today. He seems much
more at ease today, reading this statement, than the statement that had to be
read yesterday, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the C-NOPB, along with the proponents and
the government of this Province, have felt that this is the appropriate decision
to be made in this case. When we consider, I guess, both the reservoir quality
and reserves generally, Mr. Speaker, and if we take that into account, we can
only agree with this decision that is being made, but we have to make sure that
it is being done for the right reasons, and we have to ensure as well that the
true beneficiaries are always the people of this Province as, of course, is
indicated and is in accordance with the Atlantic Accord of many years ago.
Because this is such an important industry to all of the people of our
Province, it would be interesting to have the minister some day give us an
update with respect to the federal government and the amendment of its
regulations as a result of the ruling on the boundary between our Province and
Nova Scotia as it relates to the Laurentian sub-basin. Equally important, Mr.
Speaker, we would also like to learn very quickly and we would like to have an
update from the minister with respect to what is happening with respect to
Hebron-Ben Nevis.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, we would like to know what this government
is doing to attract new activity with respect to this particular area.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess our GDP is going to go through the roof again while all of our people
are leaving in droves. I say to the minister: Why is it, with all the activity
offshore, that the people of this Province are not reaping the benefits of an
oil industry the same as people in Alberta, Alaska, or other countries around
the world? Why is it that we do not have any secondary processing in this
Province that will create meaningful employment for people? Why is it that our
resources are just coming in, stocked, or shipped away directly from the site?
I say to the minister, while this might be good news for you, it is
definitely not good news for the people of this Province in terms of employment
opportunities that will allow them to stay here and raise their families.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize December 3 as
International Day of Disabled Persons, as proclaimed by the United Nations.
Today is a time to celebrate the achievements of individuals, communities and
governments as we work together to eliminate barriers faced by persons with
disabilities.
The theme of this year's International Day of Disabled Persons is:
Independent Living and Sustainable Livelihood. In our Province, organizations
such as the Independent Living Resource Centre and the Coalition of Persons with
Disabilities are committed to enhancing the lives of disabled persons, and
helping them to lead independent lives, and I commend them for their work. I
want to acknowledge members of these groups in the gallery today: Cecilia
Carroll, chairperson, Mary Reid, executive director, and members and volunteers
of the Independent Living Resource Centre, along with Mary Ennis from the
Coalition of Persons with Disabilities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, our government is pleased to work with these
organizations and others to promote and support the independent living of
persons with disabilities in this Province. In recent years, we have made
significant advances in the programs and services offered to disabled persons.
For example, the Home Support Program provides services to approximately 1,700
adults with disabilities and 329 children with disabilities. We offer alternate
family care homes which provide room and board, supervision, and social support
in a family atmosphere for adults with developmental disabilities. The
Cooperative Apartment Program focuses on supports and teaching skills to enable
more independent living. Employability assistance, also available for people
with disabilities, provides training services and supported employment.
While we have made significant advances in our work, we realize it is
important to continue moving forward with programs and policies to assist
persons with disabilities. As we implement our Strategic Health Plan, we will
examine the effects and roles persons with disabilities will have in the
component pieces and strategies. In particular, we will be developing a
long-term care and supportive services strategy which will explore more options
for care and community-based models, as well as strategies to support and
encourage disabled persons to exercise control over their own lives and to fully
participate in society.
Mr. Speaker, disabled persons make significant economical, political and
cultural contributions within their communities. International Day of Disabled
Persons presents an opportunity for us to recognize these important
contributions and achievements, and to reflect on ways to continue moving
forward in addressing physical and social barriers that persons with
disabilities often face.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you to the minister for providing me with a copy of his statement.
I, as well, would like to acknowledge the members of the Independent Living
Resource Centre and the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities, and thank them
for their commitment to the lives of disabled persons.
Mr. Speaker, the minister refers to the Home Support Program, alternate
family care homes and Cooperative Apartment Programs; all good programs. How
many cuts have been made to these programs? How are we treating, for example,
our alternate caregivers? How are we treating the respite workers who take care
of people who live in alternate family care homes? We are often judged on how we
treat the people who care for our disabled. We have respite workers out there
taking care of our disabled. The government shirked its responsibility, as the
employer, and put that responsibility over on the caregivers and on the parents
of the disabled and now these people are out there working in the community.
Each day they are risking a physical damage and this government still has not
seen opportune to provide workers compensation for those people. So, how we take
care of the people who care for our disabled is certainly a reflection on us.
Mr. Speaker, what of those disabled by mental illness? Government introduced
the Right Futures program. It put people from the institutions out in the
communities.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS S. OSBORNE: A minute to -
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS S. OSBORNE: So I am being denied leave?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement and
agree with him that any advances in this area are certainly desirable and to be
applauded, but I would like to applaud, first, the disabled people themselves
and the people who advocate on their behalf for the strides and the pressure
that they brought on different governments throughout the years to get them
where they are today. It is still a long way to go, Mr. Speaker. I think we can
all agree, if we walk around our own communities we can see evidence each and
everyday in places that we visit that are restricted to people who are able to
access on their own, but anybody who is disabled are still barred from many
places in our communities.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: So while there is progress being made, Mr. Speaker, we still
have a long way to go.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary
Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Youth Mine Action
Ambassador Program. As we mark the fifth anniversary of the treaty to ban
anti-personnel land mines.
On December 3, 1997, representatives of 122 countries gathered in Ottawa and
signed the Ottawa Treaty, which is now referred to as the Convention to Ban
Anti-Personnel Mines. This day is recognized as one of inspiration and hope for
peace in our world.
After many years of hard work, meetings and lobbying, a community of
non-governmental organizations and international governments succeeded in
creating and signing a treaty to ban land mines. The goal of the Treaty is to
ensure that countries, party to it, will end the use, production, stockpiling
and transfer of land mines.
Since the 1997 signing of the Convention to Ban Anti-Personnel Mines, the
Canadian government and non-governmental organizers continue to take a
leadership role to end the suffering as a result of this indiscriminate weapon.
The Youth Mine Action Ambassador Program resulted from the collaborative efforts
of these two groups.
Mr. Speaker, here in our Province we have an active Youth Mine Action
Ambassador Program, a tri-partite initiative of the Department of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade, Mines Action Canada and the Canadian Red Cross.
Hosted by Oxfam Canada here in St. John's, the Youth Mines Action Ambassador
Program aims to facilitate community action and awareness with Canadians across
our country.
Mr. Speaker the Youth Ambassador for our Province is Ajmal Pashtoonyar. I
would like to acknowledge Ajmal's presence here in the gallery today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Ajmal is an Afghan native who came to Canada four years ago as
a student refugee with World University Science of Canada and is currently
studying a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science at Memorial University. In
1994, while travelling to his home country, Ajmal became an eyewitness to the
destruction and devastation caused by the decades of war and civil fighting. It
was at this time that he met with land mine survivors and felt a deep commitment
to be involved in the anti-land mine movement.
Mr. Speaker, I invite all hon. members to join me in marking the anniversary
of the Treaty and to recognize it as a moment of inspiration and hope for peace
in our world.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for forwarding a copy of her statement before we came to
the House. We too, on this side of the House, welcome any initiative by anybody
to promote peace in the world, and certainly to bring forward the concern that
land mines have been brought forward over the past couple of years. We all are
under an educational process in regard to the things that cause such war and
devastation to many people around our world. We, on this side of the world, are
very lucky, Mr. Speaker, that we know about war and we know about the ravages of
war through the media. We have not had the experience of it and we're very
lucky, but many parts of the world suffer each day from war. We watch T.V. and
we read the news and we learn of this devastation that has been caused by war.
Certainly, land mines are a major part of that, and it is something where many
innocent people find they are either killed or harmed in such a way, Mr.
Speaker, that causes lifetime hardship.
We, on this side of the House, certainly welcome Ajmal to our Province and in
whatever way we can promote world peace - Mother Theresa, when she was presented
with the Nobel Peace Prize, was asked by a reporter: What could one do to
promote world peace? She said: Go home and love your family. So I guess it all
starts in the home. We hope, from our home here in Newfoundland, that we spread
the word that world peace is something that we are all interested in and
whatever we can do to promote that, we, on this side of the House, and I am sure
all members of society are on that side.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister again for an advanced copy of her statement.
Mr. Speaker, in most countries around the world today, as the wars end in
these countries, innocent people - men, women and children - continue to be
killed and maimed by land mines. As a matter of fact, since we started this
session today, twenty-four minutes ago, somebody has been killed or maimed by a
land mine because every twenty-two minutes somewhere in the world somebody is
killed or maimed by a land mine. I think that is a pretty serious situation, one
that creates very sober thoughts for those of us who live in the type of society
that we do.
I am also proud to say the role that our country has played -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: - in making the Ottawa convention a reality. I think that is
something every Canadian can be proud of, the role we played in that, and the
work that has been carried out in the world today as a result of that
convention.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy.
In his ministerial statement yesterday the minister tried to lure and seduce
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians into believing the unbelievable, that there was
never a deal with Quebec on the Lower Churchill.
Mr Speaker, my question to the minister is this: How does he expect
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to believe that there was never a deal after
the dozens of hours of late night sessions with the Liberal caucus, with the
marathon session with members from the caucus from Labrador and the leadership
in Labrador to sell the deal and, finally, with the Premier's statement
outside this House when asked directly: Was there a deal or had a deal been done
with Quebec? He answered: That was a fair characterization. How does he expect
anybody in this Province to believe his words yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that there
was never a deal with Quebec on the Lower Churchill?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: How do we expect the people of the Province to believe us?
Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to the question is this: Because, we simply
attempt to tell the truth in those circumstances. In that circumstance, I would
expect the people to believe us.
The fact of the matter, that discussions at a given point, with a given
party, might be concluded, does not translate automatically into a conclusion
that there is a deal that we are prepared to sign, seal and deliver to the
people of the Province for consideration.
I say to the hon. member again, in addition to the fact that we attempt to be
factual and tell the truth on these issues, the fact of the matter is that there
is more than one component part to a deal in any event. A business arrangement
with Quebec would only be one potential part. All of the other deals, all of the
other agreements that have to be signed off on, all of the other arrangements
that have to be agreed to with other parties such as the Innu, et cetera, still,
all of these things form part of the deal, if and when there will be a deal.
I say to the hon. member, concluding talks at a specific point with Quebec or
any other partner does not automatically translate into a deal that we have
concluded is good enough to bring forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What the minister has asked everybody in the Province today, through his
commentary and answer to the question, is: Believe me because, if I say it is
so, it is actually so. That is what the minister is saying.
Let me ask him this question: Mr. Speaker, the former chair of Hydro has
openly contradicted the minister's statements that there was never a deal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, how does the minister respond to his evidence
that was presented to the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Board of Directors
last week, for their due diligence vote, was clearly the deal, he said, and that
the genuineness was confirmed by the board's own legal counsel?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Probably, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could have read all
of the commentary that at least was in The Telegram by the former chair
of the board.
The fact of the matter is again, Mr. Speaker, and I can only reiterate what I
have said on two or three previous occasions, both inside the House and outside
of the House, that while a high level of development toward a possible deal had
taken place, while the whole possible framework towards an agreement had matured
to a very high level, the fact of the matter is that, as the former chair of
Hydro said in The Telegram this morning, there were still I's to be
dotted, there were still T's to be crossed. That, in our colloquialisms in
this Province, means that there was still work to be completed, all of the final
and finite details were not done, were not put in place, and therefore he
confirms -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: - if I read him right - without getting into translating
his body language, I will certainly attempt to interpret his verbiage - that
there was work left to be done on the deal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We want to talk about verbiage. We have gone from last week, the Premier
saying, it will be done by the end of the week, to this week, it is
internalizing; people are standing down, but we are proceeding.
Mr. Speaker, all of that is language of backpedalling. The minster says that
he supports the guiding principles that government set out two days after the
negotiations with Alcoa had fallen off. That is what he says.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask him this question: Is his action today, which is
completely different from the words and the actions of the Premier just last
week, is that action stepping down or stepping back now from the deal that was
finalized last week? Is his action an admission that the deal that was presented
to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro does not reflect, in total, what those
guiding principles had set out for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member knows and acknowledges that the principles that were set out
by both premiers in August would form, hopefully, the basis of an eventual deal
between the two provinces to develop the Lower Churchill Gull Island project.
What has been happening since August is this: The officials, along with lawyers,
taking good advice from all of the sources that we could get it from, were
fleshing out how, in fact, the principles would be reflected in legal language,
in legalese, in implementation form, so we could move to an announcement that a
deal would, in fact, be concluded.
Most of the work, I say to the hon. member - we say this again - most of the
work, a lot of the work, a substantial amount of the work, was completed, was in
some measure put into a format such that it could have easily been translated
into or become a component part of a framework deal. All of the work, however,
was not completed. All of the issues were not signed off on -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: - all of the concepts were not endorsed and in final form,
and therefore, as the former chair refers to it, there was dotting of I's,
there was crossing of T's. Translation: there was additional work yet to be
done before there was a deal to be brought forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My suggestion to the minister is when the Premier gets back - maybe that is
why it happened. Maybe that is why the statement was made when the Premier was
absent. Who knows, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask him this question: Isn't it true, Mr. Speaker, that the
minister's move yesterday was simply a blatant political attempt to take the
steam out of growing public and internal opposition to the deal? Isn't that
why you began the backpedalling?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The answer is, unequivocally, no.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: The statement in the House yesterday and the information I
provided to the media in the scrum yesterday was simply in keeping with our
responsibility as government, and that was to keep the people of the Province
informed and updated and in the loop as to where we were with our discussions on
a possible Lower Churchill deal.
Mr. Speaker, that responsibility is equally as important to us if things are
moving forward swiftly, if things are moving forward slowly, or if things are
not moving at all. We have the obligation to keep the people of the Province
informed, and we will continue to do that. When the news is good we will present
it, when the news is bad we will present it, but in this case it is not bad
news. A delayed deal is not a dead deal. I say to the hon. member, stay tuned,
there is still life after December 2, yesterday, when we proposed that the thing
was slowing down somewhat. We are still hopefully committed to getting the Lower
Churchill developed, not because it is good for us as politicians -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: - but we hope to do it because we think it will be good for
the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A final supplementary.
If the minister is expecting people in this Province to believe that there
was no deal, that whatever they presented to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, as
a government, was some hypothetical situation, let me ask him these two
questions: How much money did you pay Bristol Communications to do up an ad
campaign for a hypothetical deal; and, secondly, is it a fact that where you won't
table in this House, for everyone to see, what you gave to the Board of
Directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, what you presented to them, is it
a fact that where you will not present it in this House, that that strictly is a
confirmation that if you did people in Newfoundland and Labrador would see
exactly that you had a deal and it was not in their best interests? Is that why
you will not table it in this House?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The work that was done, as preparatory work in the event that there may have
been an announcement, is work that normally would have been done in any
circumstance when you are laying the groundwork, preparing yourself for possible
announcements at a future date. Any money we have spent with any communications
company we believe is money well spent, because, guess what? We believe that
someday, we hope that someday, we will have the benefit of being able to use
that to present a good deal to the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: With respect to the cost of this work, that information, to
the extent that it is appropriate to be released, is a question that should be
directed to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, because that is the organization
through which that work was being done.
With respect to whether or not we will get a deal, we will see. I will say to
the hon. member, we will be happy to table in this House, we will be happy to
make available to the people of the Province, we will be happy to make available
to all who should have it, all who want it, the complete deal if, and when, we
get one done for presentation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Minister of Finance.
As a result of decline in tax to the GDP ratio, there is now a greater
reliance in our Province on non-tax revenues from Crown corporations, from user
fees, also from withdrawals from cash reserves to cover the necessary public
services. Such non-tax revenues last year, Mr. Speaker, made up 30 per cent of
our provincial revenues. In 1989 it only made up 21 per cent.
I want to ask the minister: Why doesn't she listen to the bond rating
agencies and to the financial institutions when they keep saying that this
practice is not sustainable?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last week, or the week before, we tabled our Public Accounts which gave the
full information of everything that is recorded for all of the government
departments, Crown corporations, all the tax entities and, Mr. Speaker, it is
very important to note that these were our reports, they were tabled.
With respect to the questions associated with the bond rating agencies, I
would say to the member opposite, if he would care to listen -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: - that we have recently been upgraded. They are well
aware of what we are doing. They know our practices. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they
have recently upgraded us, as the member knows.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With the response to that question, I am wondering whether we will ever get
out of debt. She has answered a question I asked over a week ago. Is she ever
going to catch up?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Unrelated whatsoever.
I will ask her another question. I assume she is not going to give an answer
to the first one.
While presiding over the finances of our Province, Mr. Speaker, this finance
minister has taken us from fourth place in the country to the eleventh place;
the last place. In the Fraser Institute's annual audit of government's
fiscal performance, our Province scored 36.6 per cent, the lowest in the entire
country.
I want to ask the minister: Why won't she stop those atrocious practices
that is pushing our Province deeper and deeper into debt?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite has not mentioned
is that this finance minister is here when we led the country, and continue to
lead the country, in GDP.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Further, I will say, the members who sit on this side of the House have said
consistently, we can balance the books tomorrow, but we have made decisions that
affect the people of our Province. We know that this is about services we
provide for the people in our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Now, Mr. Speaker, for anyone listening, it should become
increasingly clear what his plan is because I say people should fear what will
happen to our health system, what will happen to our social services programs.
You can balance your books tomorrow but it will be on the backs and it will be
at the cost of the people in this Province who count on government to support a
publicly funded system and to find a balance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we believe and we want to continue to
support the people of our Province with respect to providing health care, and
that is what we plan to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can hardly imagine somebody doing more damage to a health care system than
she did when she was minister of this caucus. I can hardly imagine it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Now that she raised the issue on health care, I would like
to ask this minister: Will she confirm that her health care expenditures have
not risen as much as the minister would like us to pretend, as she likes to
pretend? Will she confirm, Mr. Speaker, that areas of expenditures, such as
youth corrections, child protection, family and rehabilitative services, which
were traditionally under other departments, are now listed in the $1.47 billion
that is now under the Department of Health and Community Services?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that wherever I have
gone, he has followed me. So, there you go; and he is still following me, Mr.
Speaker, and I can also say -
AN HON. MEMBER: But he can't catch up.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: And he can't catch up, that's right.
But I can say, very importantly, and I think this is important for the people
of the Province because this is an important question. Mr. Speaker, first of
all, we spent more per capita on health - these are not my numbers. These are
numbers that have been pulled from figures that you have referred to in the
Fraser Institute and other reports. We do spend more on our health programs per
capita. We continue to spend more. We have increased our funding 50 per cent in
health care over the last five years, and any government across this country
would say that recognizes that this is our number one priority and is certainly
our number one priority for the people of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and it
concerns the department's winter road maintenance program along Route 320,
from Trinity to the Lumsden area. After a snow or freezing rainstorm, the
difference in the road conditions from Trinity to Gambo, when compared to
Trinity to Lumsden, is like day and night.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear from the outset that in no way does the
problem reflect on the work crew from the Lumsden division. I know most of them
personally and they are as good as any in the Province. But for whatever reason,
the
section from Trinity towards Lumsden is almost always, without exception,
after a storm usually in a dangerous driving condition while, at the same time,
the
section from Trinity to Gambo is in far better condition.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member ought to get to his question.
MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, can the minister please explain why there is
such a difference?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the hon. member for his maiden question, but
if he is saying that
section of the road is not being done so well, there is
obviously - he said it is not a reflection on the workers, because our
section
of the highway in this Province is broken up into sections. The amount of
resources that is allocated is the same for each depot. The analysis, in terms
of the mixture of salt and sand, is all done based on the region.
As a matter of fact, I travelled on Route 340 and travelled up through that
area on Saturday during the four seasons that we had, in terms of sunshine,
rain, freezing rain and snow. I did the whole loop on Saturday. I travelled
those particular sections of the highway and I found no difference in the
section of that road in any particular area. I left Lewisporte and travelled
right around the whole area there and -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer, quickly.
MR. BARRETT: - observed what was going on and was trying to assess the
situation in terms of what the conditions of the roads were. I think the crews -
one of the problems you probably have is that you have to evaluate when you put
the plows on the road -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARDING: Supplementary further to what I already said, Mr. Speaker.
This past Sunday I drove that road as well. I came back from my district. I
left Valleyfield at 11:00 a.m. and the
section to Trinity was treacherous with
three or four inches of slush totally covering the road, but after I got to
Trinity the road was in really good condition.
I ask the minister to investigate this matter with his department officials
in Grand Falls and while he is doing so, to check and see if there is a shortage
of suitable, reliable equipment in the Lumsden division and are there enough
employees retained for the winter snow-clearing program?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I was in that particular area. As a matter of
fact, I think -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. BARRETT: Just watch the body language now. I know you are a bunch of
psychics over there, watch the body language.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. BARRETT: The hon. member has asked a question and obviously, his
colleagues do not want to hear any response to the question.
The snow in that particular area started at about 7:00 in the morning, Sunday
morning, and the hon. member did say that there was slush on the road. The slush
on the road was because our equipment was out and had pre-salted the road to
eliminate, because it was forecasted that we were going to get snow and it was
going to snow all day. Our crew was out and pre-salted the road. The reason
there was slush on the road was because the road was pre-salted. One of the
problems we have in areas where there is low traffic -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer, quickly.
MR. BARRETT: You realize that where there is a lot of traffic on the road
and we apply the salt that the salt works a lot faster. In that particular area
we have very low traffic volumes, the salt was on the road, and that is why we
had a slob on the road. The equipment was out. There was no difference in the
depot than anywhere else.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.
As the minister is aware, I have been lobbying this government since elected,
from all areas of the Province, with petitions to have this government provide
assistance to people with MS and other diseases in terms of the drugs that they
need. Even the MS Society of Canada, Mr. Speaker, have identified that this
Province is the only province in this country that places their residents in the
unacceptable position of having to choose between poverty or taking the
medication that they need to slow the progression of their disease.
I ask the minister: Will he commit to the people of this Province who suffer
from MS and other diseases, and who require high-cost drugs, that he will
improve the provincial drug program, get in line with other provinces in this
country, so that hard-working residents of our Province do not have to reduce
themselves and their families to poverty level incomes before you and your
government will step in to offer any type of assistance?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Indeed, the hon. member raises a very interesting question. Indeed, as he
said, he has actively pursued it for some time. It points to a major problem,
Mr. Speaker, which I have spoken to repeatedly, and certainly has been
referenced by others in this Province, that despite the best efforts that we
have made, as a government, in recent years, trying to respond to the many
demands that are out there in terms of new drugs that are coming on the market,
very expensive drugs, still many of them, at this point in time, including the
drug to which the hon. member has made reference, we are trying to find the
means by which to respond.
The reality is, Mr. Speaker, we do not have in this Province at the present
time a universal drug program, and for a very simple reason, we do not have the
resources to support and sustain such a program. So, it is not a matter of
saying to people that we don't recognize that your need is justified. What we
are trying to do is to try to find a way to respond to that.
Quite frankly, one of the things right now that we are examining with
interest is the Romanow Report, to see if, in fact, there is a reference, there
is a
section in the report, that refers to the Pharmicare program.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. SMITH: Hopefully, within that, we will be able to find the means to
respond to the sort of problem that the hon. member references here today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister, I wish it were as simple as that, because what you
claim as not having the resources to be able to do, you will do once a person
reduces themselves to the poverty level. It is ridiculous to say, Mr. Speaker,
that someone working in this Province making $30 an hour, afflicted with this
disease, can move to another province, any other province, make $10 an hour and
be financially better off. That is ridiculous!
I ask the minister: Will he commit to the principles that are outlined in the
Romanow Report? Will he make a commitment to the people of this Province today,
that when these things are implemented that these drugs will be provided for,
and not take the position that the Premier of this Province has taken, that they
want the money with no strings attached and no accountability?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that this minister will not do
will be to commit to something that he does not feel he is in a position to
deliver on. Quite frankly, I am prepared to move forward and - the first meeting
for the Health Ministers is actually scheduled for this Friday - to start
looking in detail. Certainly, that part of the program I am interested in.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that all members of this House need to be reminded of
the fact that at the present time this government is, in fact, making a
considerable effort in terms of trying to deal with the very real challenges
that are out there as they relate to pharmaceuticals in this Province. During
the last year we had some 38,000 families in this Province in receipt of a
subsidy for drugs; we had some 34,000 seniors who were receiving it. In total,
Mr. Speaker, there were some 2.5 million prescriptions, for which we accepted
responsibility, in the area of $87 million. So that certainly speaks to the
level of support that this government makes to pharmaceuticals and to the
support of people whom the hon. member opposite has referenced here today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation. I say, watch out for the rookies, Mr. Minister.
During the recent by-election in Conception Bay South and Holyrood, the CBS
bypass was an important issue and was discussed by all candidates of all
political stripes. In fact, while campaigning during that campaign, the minister
and the Premier confirmed it was a priority of the current government. Can the
minister reaffirm that this is a priority of the current government; and, if it
is a priority, when can the residents of CBS and Holyrood expect to drive on
that new highway?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question: The road was a
priority during the by-election; the road is a priority today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask hon. members now if they could allow the business of the House to
proceed in an orderly fashion.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary
Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to present a petition on behalf
of a group of individuals regarding the issue of the name of Memorial University
of Newfoundland. This petition, with a portion of the signatories, has also been
presented in this House on four previous occasions. I think there were a large
number of names and the party decided to split it down into groups and have it
presented often. Therefore, I will only read the beginning and the prayer of the
petition, because it is rather lengthy.
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland, in legislative session
convened.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.... It
is followed then by nine statements, nine
WHEREAS, and the prayer reads:
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to retain the current name - Memorial University of Newfoundland.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
This particular petition, this particular portion of a petition, is signed by
512 individuals from Memorial University in St. John's, Sir Wilfred Grenfell
College, students, faculty and staff.
Mr. Speaker, the Board of Regents of Memorial conducted a public process to
consider this issue with representations from interested parties, including
these petitioners, and it has presented a recommendation to government. This
recommendation and this issue will be considered and, if necessary, brought
forward to the Legislature in due course.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to rise today and present a petition signed on behalf of the
residents of Labrador. The petition states:
WHEREAS the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund was set up with $347.6
million from the federal government for transportation in Labrador; and
WHEREAS the fund requires that money in the fund be used for the maintenance
of marine ferry service to Labrador, construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway,
and other initiatives related to transportation in Labrador; and
WHEREAS the Liberal government announced in the 2002 Budget that $97 million
would be taken out of the fund and added to general revenues of the Province to
be used for purposes outside the act;
We, the undersigned petitioners, believe that the raiding of the Labrador
Transportation Initiative Fund is a gross violation of the purposes of the fund
and a breach of trust with the people of Labrador, and hereby petition the House
of Assembly to direct the government to immediately put this $97 million back
into the fund, to be spent on transportation initiatives.
Mr. Speaker, the Trans-Labrador Highway has always, since it has been built,
been in need of repair on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. It is a
gravel highway, Mr. Speaker, and as you fix up one portion of that highway the
other
part is already starting to deteriorate.
Now some of the members opposite argue that this $97 million, or this fund,
was not meant specifically for the Trans-Labrador Highway. Mr. Speaker, it was
not meant - I guarantee everybody in this House - to reduce the deficit of this
Province. It was meant for transportation issues, and the Trans-Labrador Highway
definitely falls into a transportation item, and that is more appropriately
where this money should have been spent. It is ridiculous, I say, Mr. Speaker,
for people to have to drive over roads in that condition on a daily basis in
this day and age.
People have written from other countries about the deplorable condition of
the road. People who have travelled to Siberia, and travelled across Labrador,
could not get over the fact that roads in Siberia were superior to roads in a
rich country like Canada, when it comes to the Trans-Labrador Highway.
Generally, Mr. Speaker, it is very unsafe to drive over. It is not maintained
properly.
Just two weekends ago, we had a storm on a Saturday, and on Sunday morning at
9 o'clock, I started to drive 80 kilometres of that
section of highway and
there was not one snowplow on that
section of road. The roads were not ploughed,
from the time the snow started falling, up until 10 o'clock on Sunday morning.
It was that bad, Mr. Speaker, with drifts in various places, that as soon as I
got home the first thing I did was to call the RNC and let them know what
condition the highway was in.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: Just a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, they informed me that they had several calls on
the highway that day and they were advising people to stay off.
I say, Mr. Speaker, it is not fair for this government to be taking money
from a fund that was meant to improve transportation in Labrador, and use it to
reduce the deficit of this Province.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition as well, and the petition reads: To the
hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative session
convened.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since
it was paved approximately twenty-six years ago; and
WHEREAS this
section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that school
children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to upgrade and pave the approximately three kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy
Cove to Bonavista.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, here again is another petition submitted by people from the
Birchy Cove, Bonavista area, the surrounding area there, asking the minister to
consider completing a
section of road that started out, when I started
delivering petitions here in this House, to be five kilometres of road. After
four attempts to go down, upgrade and repave that
section of road, there are
still three kilometres of that particular road that have not been upgraded, have
not been repaved, and still in a state not acceptable for the year 2002.
The people in the area there have had demonstrations. They have had ministers
out there. They have had the deputy minister out there. They have had town hall
meetings, putting in a plea to ask the minister and ask this government to
complete that
section of road. This is a
section of road that is the main road,
the main artery, one of the main arteries leading into the Town of Bonavista.
People go there on a regular basis to access health care, to access government
offices, to go to work. School children travel from the area there up as far as
Upper Amherst Cove to go to school on a daily trip to school and back again.
Their petitions are coming forward to this House to say to the minister that,
after four attempts, isn't it about time that we completed five kilometres of
road? Because that is what it started out to be, and there are still three
kilometres left to be done.
Every year, Mr. Speaker, the commitment is made that we are going to do two
kilometres - we are going to do two kilometres of your road - and people are
willing to accept that. They are saying at least that is a beginning, and if it
takes us a couple of years to do it, fair enough.
This past season we saw a commitment made to do two kilometres. It ended up
by doing 700 metres, I say to members opposite; 700 metres of one of the main
roads leading into the Town of Bonavista. The people are asking that this
section of road now be upgraded and completed so that we can move on and do
other work and to allow the people who use that road on a daily basis, on a
regular basis, to allow them to drive over -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: - a road that is reflective of the cost that they pay in
taxes for gasoline and in taxes, and in the fees they pay to register their car.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, today rise in my place to present a petition, as did the
Minister for Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. I am basically
representing a group individuals who oppose the name change for Memorial
University of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The minister did not read her petition, all of it; I think I will.
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative
session convened.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;
WHEREAS the government has requested the Board of Regents to consider a name
change of our University; and
WHEREAS Memorial University of Newfoundland is excluded under the
Newfoundland and Labrador Act; and
WHEREAS publicly funded universities can be named for a region of a province;
and
WHEREAS when other political entities changed, the name of the university
within it did not; and
WHEREAS our educational mandate is not limited to this Province; and
WHEREAS the University is on the Island of Newfoundland; and
WHEREAS the first university in other provinces did not reflect the entire
name of the province; and
WHEREAS there will be enormous costs to undergo this name change; and
WHEREAS there are enormous disadvantages to not having a geographic identity
attached to the University; and
WHEREAS another proposed university in this Province is more suitable to have
Labrador added to its name;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to retain the current name, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, there were some 645 signatures on this petition, from all over
the Island, various areas of the Province: St. John's, Mount Pearl, Grand
Falls, Springdale, the Goulds, Pouch Cove, all over. Maybe some as far as the
West Coast, Corner Brook.
Mr. Speaker, I can go into many, many reasons why the name should not be
changed, as presented here to me. When these individuals presented me with the
petition to present to the House, they gave me sixteen basic reasons why the
name of Memorial University of Newfoundland should not be changed. I do not
think I have the time to get into all of those reasons but there are a few, I
think, I would mention.
These people believe that there is going to be minimal benefit by changing
the name to Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. They also point
out there is no legislation in place to require the name to be changed. Also, a
very important point, Mr. Speaker, is the cost involved in the name change to
Memorial University: all their letterheads, and various other departments within
Memorial University itself, the cost involved in it. I do not believe, at this
point in time, that there was a cost-benefit analysis done to see if it makes
sense even to go ahead with this name change.
Another important point I would make, Mr. Speaker, is that Memorial
University, the name itself, represents, I suppose, those individuals who fought
in the First World War and Second World War, and it is as a memorial to those
individuals. I do not see the necessity to change the name -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. J. BYRNE: Just one more point in conclusion, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to make that point clear. Again, the people who fought in the
First World War, Second World War, many lost their lives, many came back, and
this Memorial University was named after those individuals. I do not see the
necessity to change the name.
Also, I would just like to say that I signed the petition, Mr. Speaker, and I
do support those individuals. Some members present petitions here but they have
not said they are in support of the petition one way or the other. I do not mind
saying, I do.
MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader points out that
they do not have to, it is not required, but I do not mind saying that I do
support this petition.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 21, second reading of a bill,
An Act
Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The
Province. ( Bill 23)
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Provision Of
Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province." (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly my pleasure today to rise in this House and introduce the
Income and Employment Support Act.
Mr. Speaker, it has been often said that the highest measure of a society is
how it treats and protects its most vulnerable members. On that basis, I am
proud to stand here today and open debate because this bill provides the
foundation for that protection.
This act is the legislative vehicle that ensures access to income support in
a dignified manner for persons of our society that require such support. For the
first time we enshrine access to a range of employment supports to enable all
people to take their rightful place as active participants in a labour market
that is more inclusive and accommodating of their needs.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents a profound change in the way we
develop social policy and how we view poverty. This government recognizes
poverty cannot be treated in isolation from the roots and causes of poverty.
Poverty, Mr. Speaker, is a social condition that has its roots in economic
disparity, that isolates people from opportunities to improve their
circumstances, and it contributes to profound social and health consequences.
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that poverty is marginalizing on an important part
of our labour force at a time when our aging population points to the challenges
for the future. Today, we talk about concepts like determinates of health and
well-being. In simple terms, this means factors that ensure healthy individuals
within a health society. These factors include health, literacy and education
levels, fulfilling employment and the alleviation of other effects of poverty.
Producing a healthy society is not the responsibility of one department of
government working alone, nor is it of government exclusively. It is the product
of many departments working in concert with the community. It is a holistic
effort covering many policy areas simultaneously in a broad plan. Research shows
us that a clear link exists between health, education, employment and income.
Mr. Speaker, in 1996 the government produced a Strategic Social Plan for
Newfoundland and Labrador. Through this plan all the initiatives that have come
from it, government has recognized that employment and economic security are the
key to securing long-term well-being of the people, the communities and the
Province. We are committed to ensuring that social and economic development go
hand in hand. We are committed to a vision of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
as healthy, educated and self-reliant people living in supportive communities,
having access to social programs which encourage them to reach their full
potential. It is no longer enough just to establish a passive, social, safety
net to support vulnerable people who lack the economic resources to support
themselves and their families. This bill now legislates the philosophy of active
support aimed at assessing people to achieve economic independence and realizing
their full potential to contribute and participate in society.
Mr. Speaker, we know that as the economic climate improves fewer people will
rely on income support. When work is available, people want to work. This is why
this government has placed such emphasis on improving and diversifying our
economy.
Before I move into a detailed discussion on the principles of this
legislation, I would like to take a few minutes to explain to the House the
process by which this legislation comes before us. By understanding where the
bill comes from, the purposes and goals of the this bill and the department are
made clear.
In 1997 our Province faced an alarming situation, at the time the social
assistance caseload stood at a monthly high of 36,600 cases, representing over
70,000 recipients. We were most concerned that some 15,000 families, with
approximately 26,000 children, were dependent on social assistance. This meant
that one in three children under five were members of households dependent on
social assistance at some point during the year.
Expenditures on social assistance had more than doubled, from $108 million
annually in the early 1990s to over $243 million. It was clear that government
had to seize the initiative and develop a comprehensive strategy to address this
situation.
In April of 1997, government created a Department of Human Resources and
Employment with a mandate to redesign the social assistance program. This
redesign was to change the focus of the departments activities and program
towards providing direct help to individuals and families to achieve greater
independence. At that time, we wanted to provide additional support to
low-income persons and families, and not only for those receiving social
assistance, it was time to make substantial changes and examine how we could
best deliver positive outcomes for people linked to the goals of prosperity and
self-reliance. Mr. Speaker, we want the staff of Human Resources and Employment
to spend less time on administration and more time dealing directly with our
clients and the issues which are important to them.
We have made substantial progress over the past four years and these
initiatives represent real improvement in service for clients. The income on
employment support programs we have today are not the programs we had in 1997.
In cooperation with our federal partners, the National Child Benefit was
introduced in 1998, and this Province introduced the Newfoundland and Labrador
Child Benefit in 1999. This meant more money available to all low-income
families in the Province, not just the families receiving social assistance. For
example, in 1997, a low-income family with two children would be eligible to
receive $170 a month in child benefits. In 2002, that same family would now
receive $433 a month in child benefits. This is an increase of over 150 per cent
in the money that these families have available for their children each month.
Besides these increases in money flowing directly to low-income families, the
other important change is that these benefits are not tied to social assistance
but are available to all low-income families. Families who leave social
assistance for employment do not lose these benefits for their children. By
these measures, and others, we have diminished important disincentives to
families wanting to leave social assistance to take employment.
Other measures include the introduction of an extended drug card for six
months for clients who leave social assistance after gaining employment,
improvements to the earnings exemptions so that clients can keep more liquid
assets and more of their employment earnings without affecting their benefits,
and increased child care allowances.
Since 1997, through our Employment and Career Services Program, we have
provided direct employment assistance to approximately 5,000 individuals and
families each year. We have targeted specific services to support persons with
disabilities. Over $3 million is spent each year for training and education
services to improve their employability. We lead the country in the provision of
supported employment services for people with developmental disabilities, and we
have developed and delivered these in co-operation with community agencies.
Another $3.1 million is dedicated to support these clients. This year, I
increased this amount by a further $300,000 in response to the demands on the
program. Because of this, some 470 clients will be participating in employment
in the community this year.
Mr. Speaker, we are in discussions with the federal government to review the
Employability Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Agreement under which
they contribute funding. We have made it clear to our federal colleagues that
these are valuable and successful programs. We need to ensure that the future
federal funding reflects the demands placed upon these programs, and we need to
ensure that persons with disabilities are integrated fully into the community
and the workforce.
Even more important than that, these new initiatives in policies and programs
reflect the basic shift in philosophy which links employment supports with
income supports. This shift has been reflected in our policies, in our programs,
and in our departmental structure. Now the time has come to incorporate those
changes into legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the process by which this act came to the House reflects a
different process on a modern and progressive attitude. This government adheres
to the principles laid down by our Premier: principles of openness,
transparency, and accountability. I am proud to say that these principles have
guided the development of this legislation.
On January 2, 2002, we announced a review of the Social Assistance Act and
released a discussion paper called, Investing in People: New Directions for
Social Assistance Legislation. We held fifty sessions Province-wide with
community agencies, clients, staff, youth, Strategic Social Plan steering
committees, and other government departments. We held focus groups with social
assistance clients and seventy-five community organizations. We received briefs,
community group submissions, letters, e-mails and over 1,100 Web site hits.
Overall, I have to say that this was a very successful consultation.
This past August, we released the report of a consultation on the Social
Assistance Act. This report has been acknowledged as a thorough and fair
summary
of what we heard. I cannot say that we heard a consensus. In fact, Mr. Speaker,
the views presented reflected a wide range of opinions and deeply held beliefs.
This is just what we would expect on matters like these.
Without going into all the individual items, I think it is worthwhile to
inform the House that four general themes emerged. One: that the income support,
the employment, and, of course, career services program, are important and
valued by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Two: there is a need and a
desire for the provision of income support in a manner that is dignified and
less intrusive while supporting those who need help in preparing for, finding
and keeping work. Three: there are concerns with the income support rate
structure. I acknowledge to the House that while we have made significant
strides towards addressing these issues, much more needs to be done in this area
as resources permit. Four: that persons with disabilities do not want to be
treated in a segregated manner, but want to be a part of the main-stream
services with due attention paid to their unique needs and circumstances. That
is the background for this legislation and the context in which it is written.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take you through some of the major provisions of
the bill in general terms and cover some of the highlights briefly. On page 7,
you will read that the number one purpose of this bill is "...to facilitate
the provision of income and employment support to eligible persons."
This signals an important shift. For the first time ever in this Province, we
enshrine in a progressive manner the link between income support and employment
support. Unlike the previous legislation, that focused exclusively upon the
provisions of passive social assistance, this act is focused on active measures
that support people to further their opportunities. It is about the relationship
between the provision of income support to those in need of it and offering
programs and services to assist persons, to improve their employability.
Another highlight of this
section that I would like to point out is that it
explicitly specifies timely support to victims of violence. This should help
ensure the safety of those individuals and their children.
Mr. Speaker, I should point out that this act opens with a
preamble. We
thought it was very important to include a
preamble to this bill, because this
is a piece of legislation that does more than simply enable the provision of
government programs. It outlines a social vision for the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador. It enshrines certain ideas and ideals about who we are, what we
value, and where we want to go.
Mr. Speaker, without putting too fine a point on it, this bill enshrines
Liberal ideals. This
preamble recognizes the promotion of self-reliance and the
alleviation of poverty are the key and central social public policy goals; that
the programs we deliver must be done in a manner that respects the dignity and
the privacy of the individual and is equitable, accessible and fiscally
responsible; that people may require assistance due to circumstances that are
not of their own choosing; that people can benefit from supports and services to
help them in preparing for, accessing, and keeping employment; that persons with
disabilities face unique barriers to employment that inhibit their full
inclusion in the labour market; and that we, as a government, cannot operate in
isolation but have to work in partnership with the community and with the
federal government.
These six overarching statements are at the heart of the rationale of this
legislation and, more than anything else, point to the difference between this
bill and the current Social Assistance Act which focused primarily on passive
income support measures.
Besides the
preamble, this bill also includes basic service principles for
the delivery of all our programs. These assure the clients that there are
standards and accountability in the way services are provided. Specifically,
these service principles assure the client: that access to the service will be
achieved in a timely manner and taking into account their unique circumstances;
that there will be accountability through regular reviews of this act and of the
regulations which flow from it; that there will be transparency in the form of
free and public access to all policies and procedures of the department; and
that all applicants and recipients will be treated with dignity and respect in
accordance with a set of service standards to be developed.
I should note that the inclusion of these service principles strengthen the
accountability of my department and its officials to the clients we serve, and
to the general public. These principles are ones that my officials have long
strived to observe and which will now have the force of law.
All members of this House have been involved with issues related to income
support as part of their constituency caseload. I know, before I became minister
of this department, I was always impressed with the compassion and the
professionalism of the management and front-line staff of Human Resources and
Employment. My experience since becoming minister has only reinforced that view.
They are to be commended for the good work they do every day in providing
assistance to the people of this Province.
Mr. Speaker, one of the acts which is replaced by this bill is a Social
Services Appeal Board Act. With the client appeal provision now incorporated in
this bill, clients and their advocates will now have to refer to only one
legislative source when there is a disagreement over departmental decisions. In
addition to the current right to appeal income support decisions, provisions are
now made for the appeal of employment support services.
Mr. Speaker, under this act government is required by legislation to include
a client or a former client as a member of the appeal board. For the first time,
we have clear and definite time frames for the hearing of internal reviews and
appeals. Internal reviews must be held within fifteen days, external appeals
within thirty days, and all decisions must be rendered within five days of being
made.
These are significant and progressive measures. Clients can now be assured
that in the future they will be able to appeal both the income and employment
services and that their appeals will be handled in an explicit and timely
manner.
Mr. Speaker, privacy and confidentiality are always an issue anytime a person
gives any personal information to any government or government agency at any
level. This government is very sensitive to these issues. This act allows for
the collection of information that is necessary to ensure that clients receive
the services they require and to ensure that benefits are provided to only those
persons who are entitled to receive them, ensuring our capacity under strict
conditions for ethical, social research so we can measure the affects of our
program. Through this kind of research, we can improve the shape and delivery of
our programs for the future. Recipients and persons acting on their behalf will
be able to view their personal information and request corrections if there are
errors or omissions on their file.
Finally, information that has been gathered for the purpose of determining
eligibility cannot be shared with other agencies without the consent of the
client. Simply put, all personal information to be given to Human Resources and
Employment is protected and kept confidential.
This bill is consistent with the Access to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act. Through the privacy and confidentiality provisions of this bill,
this government is stating, unequivocally, that it intends to protect the
personal information of citizens in receipt of income and employment support.
Mr. Speaker, traditionally, in many ways, the social assistance program has
been a one-size-fits-all program, concerned primarily with the issuing of
regular cheques. With this bill, the Department of Human Resources and
Employment will break out of that legislative straightjacket and be able to move
into the new areas of support.
A key innovation is that of flexible income support. This provision provides
the department with the authority to support a client's employment plan
through the flexible use of income support money. Under certain conditions to be
specified in regulations we will have greater flexibility to support the client
with the resources needed to implement a personal plan aimed at moving to
self-reliance. This will only be done at the client's request and only on the
production of a realistic and practical plan.
We are talking about providing an advance on income support money that would
otherwise be paid out to that client if that client were to remain on income
support. For example, we could provide an income support entitlement for a
projected period of time. This would allow him or her to cover expenses incurred
in securing a job, such as buying some kind of employment-related specialized
equipment or tools, accessing short-term training or travelling for employment
interviews.
This
section is about responding to people's needs in a flexible manner.
This is about not restricting people's options. This is about preventing
people from being tied to the system, simply because the system is not capable
of a flexible response.
Why is this important, Madam Speaker? Because this is a progressive measure
which supports the removal of barriers that keep clients trapped in income
support. We want to implement a client-driven approach and live up to the
principles of self-determination. It is a prime example of linking income
support and employment services by focusing available resources on helping
clients achieve greater independence.
Madam Speaker, the matter of overpayments and underpayments is a significant
part of this legislation. We choose to draft it that way because we want to
ensure that we have transparency and accountability right upfront. Under the
current Social Assistance Act this information is not spelled out in detail, so
the process is not clear and clients are not as informed as they should be.
For underpayments arising from a departmental error, we have introduced a
six-year time frame up from the current six months. This is another important
and progressive measure to cover the exceptional cases that come up from time to
time. If the department determines that a client has been underpaid, under the
current legislation the client can only be reimbursed for the shortfall for a
maximum period of six months. Under the new act, we can provide compensation
going back as far as six years. This is fair and equitable treatment.
Madam Speaker, to properly explain the overpayment
section I have to make one
thing very clear. The intent and design of income support is that it is a last
resort program. That means that after all avenues have been exhausted, there is
nowhere else to go, people come to us. That means that we have to be there for
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We must be there for the people when
immediate help is required.
When a person applies for EI, or Canada Pension, or Workers' Compensation
and they are told their claim or application may take six to eight weeks or more
to process: Where do they go to feed their family in the meantime, until that
cheque comes in? They come to the Department of Human Resources and Employment
and we respond. This is the main reason why overpayments are created. While
people are waiting for other benefit cheques to arrive, they receive income
support and agree to repay us later.
Under these new provisions, by having the collection methods spelled out in
the act this government is clearly providing information about the parameters
within which government may act to recover funds that is owing to the
government. Important reforms in this
section include the requirement for the
department to notify clients in writing each time an overpayment is established.
Including the amount and particulars of that overpayment, the client's right
to appeal the creation of an overpayment, what specific recourse measures are
available to a person who is subject to a collection act, and the department
will be limited to a six-year time frame to calculate overpayments or to
commence action to recover overpayments.
Mr. Speaker, the importance and significance of this measure is only apparent
when you realize that there are no restrictions under the current Social
Assistance Act, no restrictions on how far government can go back to collect
overpayments. We believe this is manifestly unfair and we have now taken the
action required to correct it.
Mr. Speaker, this bill breaks new ground in the manner in which it mandates
regular reviews. In order that this basic law regarding this most important
social program remain up to date and current, this bill requires that the
government review the provisions of this act, along with the regulations which
flow from it, every five years.
During the consultation process one issue we heard about from our clients and
their advocates repeatedly is one that most concerns people within the system.
That issue is rates. We, as a government and as a department, acknowledge this
is an issue. The rates are designed to cover basic needs but because of resource
constraints we are hampered from doing so as much as we would like to.
That being said, I need to point out that recent studies of the total income
support which includes social assistance, child benefits, GST and HST refund
credits across Canada indicates that we are comparable to other provinces,
particularly for single parents with children. While working within financial
constraints, we have still managed to move forward with a 7 per cent rate
increase over a three year period. This has been in addition to introducing the
Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit in 1999. Besides that, we were the first
province not to deduct the National Child Benefit from people receiving income
support.
Given the importance of the Income Support Program, government in its annual
budget process reviews its ability to revisit the rate structure. This is done
as a matter of course.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand in this House today and tell you that in
addition to the budget review, government will be now obligated by statute to
revisit this issue in a formal review process every three years. For the first
time government is going to be held accountable for assessing on a regular basis
whether income support rates and the legislation adequately reflect the current
and future needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. For years social
advocates have urged government to undertake rate reviews on a more formal and
open basis rather than just as part of the regular budget process. This is a
responsibility that this government is prepared to discharge.
Madam Speaker, this act provides the fundamental framework for a range of
essential services to some of the most vulnerable populations in our Province.
We believe that we have drafted a bill that is enlightened, visionary,
progressive and understanding of the circumstances that contribute to poverty.
In recognizing that poverty is the function of lack of opportunity, it is not a
personal failing.
This bill is about providing support to those who need it and not about
imposing punitive measures. We are confident our initiatives are making a
difference. This Province has recorded an annual employment of about $211,000
for 2001 and this level of employment has not been seen since the early 1990s.
At the same time, our social assistance numbers show good and positive trends.
Income support caseload numbers continue to show a decline in the number of
families and children depending on income support.
In 1996, Madam Speaker, 26,000 children in 15,000 families, on an average,
were in receipt of income support. In 2002, this number declined sharply to
16,000 children in 10,000 families. This was due in part to the effect of the
federal- provincial child benefits. Since 1997 the caseload has declined from a
monthly high of 36,660 to a low of 28,031 in October of 2002. The actual number
of recipients is declining from a monthly high of over 70,000 in 1997, to 50,700
for October of 2002. This has been a general decline with the numbers dropping
over time across all regions of the Province.
More than 50,000 people, men, women, children and families in our Province
depend on us, as a department and as a government, to assist them through the
income and employment support programs we administer. This is an awesome
responsibility, and this is a responsibility we take very seriously. We believe
this act represents a sensible, realistic and dignified discharging of that
responsibility. This Income and Employment Support Act provides the legislative
foundation of this department's mandate. One, the provisions of income support
in a stable, dignified and less intrusive manner to eligible individuals and
families; and, two, the delivery of a range of programs and services that
support individuals in achieving their employment and career aspirations. For
the first time, we have legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador which specifies
a direct link between income support and employment supports.
Almost twenty-five years ago, in 1997, the current Social Assistance Act was
passed through the House of Assembly. In twenty-five years, the shape, look and
attitude of the Newfoundlander and Labrador society have changed dramatically.
We can no longer automatically talk about men as head of the household. We need
to be more sensitive and aware of the reality of domestic violence. We have to
recognize that the structure of families has changed; that alleviation of
poverty has to be a central, social goal; that poverty is not the fault of the
poor, and it is certainly not the fault of poor children; that persons with
disabilities want and deserve the supports required to help them into the
mainstream of social and economic life; and that all persons are deserving of
dignity.
Madam Speaker, I place before the House today a legislation which is
leading-edge legislation for the Province and for the country. This is truly
enabling social policy legislation; legislation with a focus on helping and
playing a positive role in providing supports to those in need.
Madam Speaker, when all is said and done, what greater opportunity can be
afforded to all members of this Chamber than the passing of this bill? We
believe in the dignity of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that the central
core ideal guides and permeates all sections of this act. We believe in the goal
of a more inclusive integrated society. We believe that we are obligated to
maximize the abilities of each and every citizen of this Province. Finally,
Madam Speaker, we believe that these challenges are worthy of this government
and every member of this House.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for your time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Hodder): The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I compliment the minister on the fine reading that he just did. It shows that
literacy has certainly improved. I want to say to the minister that he did
present the intent of the bill very well, and that we intend, on this side, to
respond as best we can.
I do want to refer first of all, though, to a comment that the minister made
relative to poverty. Just a few days ago, I had a circular come by and it was
entitled: More Promises, Yet More Poverty. This was in response to the federal
program and, of course, it applies equally to Newfoundland and Labrador. Of
course, Canada was among one of the six nations that was called together to
discuss child poverty almost twelve years ago. At that particular time, the
comment was made - and I am quoting from the commitment here made at the UN by
Canada - it says, "The growing minds and bodies of children should have a
first call on our societies and children should be able to depend upon that
commitment in good times and in bad."
Promises made in 1989 in Canada were not kept. They were not kept at all. In
fact, in Canada as a whole, the number of poor children between 1989 and 1999
increased by 39 per cent. The number of visits to food banks in those same ten
years went up by 90 per cent.
I quote as well from the statement made in the Canadian House of Commons. In
1989 it said, "That this House express its concern for the more than one
million Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve the
goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000." Yet,
in the year 2000, the number of poor children in Canada had increased rather
than decreased.
Madam Speaker, I say to the minister, just a few days ago - just a very, very
few days ago - it was noted in this very House that the percentage of poor
children in Newfoundland, which is the highest in the country, had gone up from
25 per cent just a couple of years ago to 26.2 per cent.
I say to the minister that while the speech that he just gave was very well
written and very well delivered, I have to say to him as well that there is an
awful indictment that we have from our poorest children to us, as legislators,
not only in Newfoundland and Labrador but in Canada. Promises made to them in
1989 have not been kept. What the children want are not more promises. They do
not necessarily even want more legislation. What they want is more action. We
need to take the promises made to them each and every time that governments
bring down budgets, and governments do that on a regular basis, and make
commitments on a regular basis. What the children of Newfoundland and Labrador
want is more concrete action.
It is our desire on this side of the House, in saying to the minister today
in all sincerity, we believe in the philosophy that this bill contains. We
believe there is an approach here that can have satisfactory results, but it
will need a commitment. It needs more than words. It needs more than sentences.
It needs more than eloquent speeches. It needs action.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: All the promises that you make are like sounding glass and
tinkling cymbals if you do not put something in place, if you do not make sure
that children have the first call on budgets. With the child poverty rate in
Newfoundland at 26.2 per cent, the highest in Canada, twice that of Prince
Edward Island, we have to say that children's voices and children's needs
have not been heard effectively in this Legislature.
Madam Speaker, I also want today to say in my opening comments that this
particular piece of legislation aims to overhaul many aspects of the Province's
social support network, and it is due to be done. This particular piece of
legislation replaces the Social Assistance Act, replaces the Social Services
Appeal Board Act, and it replaces the Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons Act
with one single act, and I commend the minister and his government for doing
that because there is a unity of purpose here. There is a consistency in the
needs of all those people who have, before now, been given support under those
various acts.
This particular act follows years of a call for an overhaul of the system,
and almost a year of extensive consultation with the stakeholders. Madam
Speaker, if we look at the results of the consultations that have gone on, we
know that in many cases many of the consultations were done by invitation. What
I did not see in the consultations was a great deal of ordinary folk, ordinary
folk who would say to the minister: Yes, I have a problem.
Just this very day, this morning, I talked to a resident of Labrador,
Labrador City in fact, who told me her problem. Forty-five years old and she
does not have anywhere to go. She is a single person, she has no job, and she is
in very, very great need of help. I say to the minister, out there today there
are many people who are listening to what the minister has said and they are
saying maybe there is more here than a promise. Maybe there is some hope. Maybe
in this season of the Advent we can have some hope coming forward, and that
their Christmas this year will be happier and better, and maybe when this all
gets in working order we will not have a dramatic increase in children and
parents and adults and seniors and students and others going to food banks.
Madam Speaker, we know that in Newfoundland and Labrador many people cannot
cope without going to food banks, and they are all not twenty-five and thirty
year olds. Some of them are children; some of them are seniors. They depend on
food banks to get along. Just the other day I had a call from a lady who said:
How much longer will it be before the Salvation Army gives out their Christmas
hampers? I was able to tell her when it would happen, the approximate time. My
heart went out to this lady who said: You know I have a real problem. My family
has to look to the Salvation Army to be able to get some help, to get some food,
to get some gifts for my children for Christmas.
While I would say to the minister that there is some good intent here, we
will need to see what actions are really taken on the promises made.
Madam Speaker, it is also fundamental, in discussing this bill, that we
address the four more fundamental issues such as economic and employment
circumstances in this Province that leaves so many people dependent on social
support; that leaves so many people dependant on help from the last resort, the
Department of Human Resources and Employment; particularly our rural parts of
the Province.
When I listen from time to time to the minister talk about all the jobs that
have been created in Newfoundland and Labrador, then I know that the employment
rate in St. John's and Mount Pearl and this area are pretty good. It is the
international average. However, if you go to rural Newfoundland - go to the
Burin Peninsula. I was in a community on the Burin Peninsula a few weeks ago in
which a person said that there is only three or four people in the whole
community that had a job. So, Madam Speaker, we look at rural Newfoundland and
what is happening? For the very first time on the Burin Peninsula this year the
total number of children attending school is under 4,000. Why is that? Because
people have moved out of the area altogether.
I heard the Mayor of Marystown this morning on the radio talking about the
desperate need for jobs that is currently being experienced by men and women on
the Burin Peninsula. Then we look at the Great Northern Peninsula and we see all
the people who have moved out of Newfoundland and Labrador. We see the
population has gone down. People have moved because they have to move. They do
not move because they have choices. When people move out of Newfoundland and go
elsewhere to get a job - often a low paying job, in some cases, in Alberta. They
say it is better to be making $10 or $12 an hour in Alberta than to be
unemployed on the Bruin Peninsula, or on the Northern Peninsula, or elsewhere.
They do not move because they have choices. They move because they have no
choices. They move out of absolute desperation.
So, when we look at this particular piece of legislation, we must keep in
mind the people who are dependent on the social programs of this Province and of
this government. In particular, we have to keep in mind rural Newfoundland.
When I was visiting Bonavista North this summer helping my good friend, the
current member there get elected, people in Bonavista North did not talk about
the things like Voisey's Bay. As a matter of fact, of all the doors I knocked
on in Bonavista North not one single person mentioned Voisey's Bay. What did
they talk about? They talked about the fact that their children have to go away.
They talked about the fact of the high cost of sending their children to
post-secondary schools. They talked about their road conditions. They said, what
is going to happen to our communities? That is what was on their minds. They saw
their communities as being threatened because there were no jobs.
When we talk about this particular piece of legislation we better keep in
mind the fundamentals that keep our communities strong. What keeps our
communities strong is jobs, it is employment, it is a future. This government
has not done enough to be able to support rural Newfoundland.
We have to look at, as well, looking at this particular piece of legislation,
the consequences and the high incidents of child poverty. I suppose it is fair
to say that very few people, maybe one or two others - I do not know of any
others who talked as much about child poverty in this House as I have. I have
introduced private members' resolutions on it. I have asked questions on it,
because I happen to believe that if we do not solve the issues of child poverty,
that we do not have as good a future in this Province as we should have.
Last year when I asked this House - I said give a commitment to the children
of Newfoundland and Labrador that in five years the incidents of child poverty,
as a percentage, will be at the Canadian average. I brought in a very simple
resolution asking for a commitment, two commitments. One said: Would you please
give us a commitment that the incident of child poverty in five years will be at
the Canadian average?
We did not ask for it to be like Prince Edward Island, 13.3 per cent. It is
at 26.2 per cent now. We did not ask them to bring it down that far. We said the
Canadian average is about 18 per cent. Make a commitment to our children that
the child poverty rate will be down to the Canadian average and do it over five
years. What did this government do? What did they do last year when I brought
forward that particular private member's resolution? They amended it to say
something along the wishy-washy terms of, like: Well, we will do the best we
can. In other words, this government was saying on that day that children's
issues do not really have a high priority for them. They would not put their
promises into any kind of commitment.
The second part of that resolution I brought in last year asked this
government if they would commit money in last year's budget to implement a
comprehensive program - develop it, bring it in - that would look at the issues
of child poverty. This government over here would not go along with it. Two very
simple things that would have said: Don't make children promises if you don't
intend to do something about it.
Madam Speaker, I am interested in this particular bill. I think the
philosophy is right. It is a step in the right direction. It is what the
stakeholders are saying to this government. However, it is no good. It is no
good if we do not follow through.
When we look at child poverty - I will be doing a further commentary on that
a little later on in terms of what it means - in terms of illness and health
costs. Because research will show that if you invest in children, you save in
health costs. You will save sometimes in terms of educational costs, because
there is a direct relationship between increases in health costs and poverty.
Just the other day I listened to a report - I believe it was on CBC - and it
talked about the relationship between health and poverty. It is part of the big
picture that CBC had been putting forward leading up to the Romanow Report. They
were talking about the connection between health and poverty. We also want to
note here that there is a direct connection, and it does affect children. It
does affect people of all ages. Poor people are not as healthy as middle class
or wealthy people. That is well researched. I will have more comments on that a
little later on as well.
We also want to talk about today - we should remember, all of these promises
are not going to be very helpful unless the federal government changes the way
it allocates money to the provinces. We have to look at the inadequacy of
federal funding under the federal health and transfer program, the CHST. Now, we
know that the federal government wants its program to be population based. We
also know that many in this Province have had to do without because the Liberal
Government of Ottawa, when it came into office in the early 1990s, changed the
whole structure. Former Premier Tobin stood in his place in Ottawa and was
counted among those who would change the whole structure of transfer payments
from being needs based to being population based, and in Newfoundland and
Labrador that has hurt us a lot. That has hurt us terribly. We now have the
current Premier saying, that was wrong. Well, you have to look at the millions,
and hundreds of millions of dollars, that we have lost in this Province because
of that one change.
The federal government owes Newfoundland and Labrador a better deal, and they
owe a better deal to our children. They owe a better deal to us because we
cannot, in this Province, continue to accept the fact that transfer payments are
not made on the basis of need. With our great population disbursed over 300
communities and over 6,000 miles of coastline from Cape Chidley right down to
the southern tip of the Burin Peninsula or the Avalon Peninsula, and all that
that means in terms of services.
We have to have the federal government saying need has to be the predominant
feature in determining how much money is needed in Newfoundland and Labrador. It
cannot be population based, if we do we might as well remember that in
Newfoundland - St. John's and Mount Pearl will do well to some extent because
it is population based; everything is population based. They would do better, as
would some other larger communities. But, if you are looking at other parts of
rural Newfoundland, we know that parts of rural Newfoundland do not have the
means to be able to support their needs in terms of the infrastructure they
need, in terms of the health care they need. So we have to make sure - if it
does not work in Newfoundland and in our provincial system, it will not work
nationally either.
Before we finish with this bill we will have to call upon the federal
government to come to the table with new funding which addresses the inadequacy.
Go back and say to them: What you did Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Chrtien, what
you did to Newfoundland and Labrador - when you changed the formula - has hurt
our children. It has hurt our health care; it has hurt our educational system;
it has hurt the programs that our people depend on in this Province to live a
decent life and to offer decent and realistic opportunities to our children.
Now, Madam Speaker -
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the hon. member that his time is up.
MR. H. HODDER: The Chair is reminded of the fact that, as critic, I have
one hour, and while I might not take all of that hour, I still have, I think,
forty minutes left.
MADAM SPEAKER: Continue.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I am near the beginning of my introduction, so I shall proceed on because the
children of Newfoundland and Labrador want their voices heard.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Madam Speaker, this bill represents a shift from passive
income support to a two-pronged approach: income support on the one hand, and
employment support that leads people in the workforce on the other hand.
Madam Speaker, we, certainly, on this side - it is not a new concept. This is
not a new concept, not at all. As a matter of fact, back in the Wells'
government, the time of Premier Wells, there was a basic income support or
income supplementation program approach that was brought forward to this House,
and some members here, like my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community
Services, he will remember it well. In fact, it was a concept brought forward to
encourage people to work by guaranteeing a basic income and providing
progressive incentives to replace income support with earned income.
Now, our party criticized that approach. We criticized that approach, at the
time, as the lowest common denominator approach that actually cut the income
that some people would earn; an approach that our party believed was grounded in
the false notion that there were employment opportunities in rural areas that
people were avoiding. In other words, all I am saying to the minister is, we
have to be very careful. We support this particular approach he is coming
forward with right now. It is a little change from the approach brought forward
by Premier Wells and his government. In fact, the change is sufficient that we
believe it is now more acceptable. We are saying to the minister today that we
believed, at that time, with the Wells approach, that it was based on -
MR. FITZGERALD: Family income.
MR. H. HODDER: - a family income approach, as my colleague from Bonavista
South reminds me.
I say that also was based on the fact that there was an underbelly that said
there were jobs out there that people were not taking. We certainly felt that
particular approach was not the right way to go. In other words, we
fundamentally believe that people in Newfoundland and Labrador will take jobs if
they are available, if they are meaningful jobs. There are people out there who
will take jobs that are minimum wage.
I can tell you that one of the most memorable moments that occurred in my
whole political career, which goes back over three decades, happened in the 1999
campaign. I knocked on a door and the lady came out and said: Harvey, can you
tell me if there is going to be an increase in the minimum wage? I said: Yes,
our party philosophy and our party book says there will be an increase in the
minimum wage. That is a commitment that we have made. She said: That's good.
Does the other party believe in that? I said: Well, you will have to ask them.
However, that is not the point I want to make. She said to me: I have been
working for thirty-eight years and I have never earned more than the minimum
wage. Here was a lady now standing in her front porch in Mount Pearl, in my
district, and she said: I have never made more money than the minimum wage has
been able to guarantee me, and I have been working for thirty-eight years.
Madam Speaker, these are moments that make a political person think. So, when
you think about minimum wages, it is not that people in Newfoundland and
Labrador will not work for the minimum wage; in some cases, regrettably, the
minimum wage is not sufficient to bring them above the poverty line. As a matter
of fact, later on I will have more comments on that as well, about what the
minimum wages means in terms of letting people live at the poverty line for a
family. The minimum wage in Newfoundland will not get you near to the poverty
line.
However, I do agree - and I say to the government, yes, the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador appreciate the fact that they have brought forward a
program of incremental increases to the minimum wage. As the member, my good
colleague from Humber Valley, just said: And you will starve to death on the
minimum wage because you will be so far below the poverty line. Our minimum wage
is not the highest in Canada. I believe British Columbia is the highest in
Canada right now. Certainly, there has been some progression made, and I say to
the government, yes, it is a step in the right direction.
My good friend, the former Member for Conception Bay South, Bob French - how
often did Bob French bring forward that comment in our caucus, about the minimum
wage. I cannot address it here without reflecting on the fact that he was the
leading advocate in our caucus for that particular matter. More and more often
he would bring it forward. In fact, it is an issue that he brought up on many,
many occasions.
Madam Speaker, having said that, as we rejig the whole income support system,
as we restructure it and we restructure the whole income network, we are not
going to solve the fundamental problems in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That
being said, the system does need an overhaul. Madam Speaker, our economy is a
seasonal economy. It is an economy with very little diversification. It is
compounded by matters of geography, infrastructure and demographics. However, we
can and should be doing better.
I want to mention as well here, we can do all the rejigging, all the
restructuring, all the re-balancing, but it makes little difference if everyone
remains far below the poverty line. Therefore, we have to say to the government:
what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want are new opportunities, not just
shifting around the chairs a little bit.
The other thing I wanted to make a point of is the fact that many of the
rules of the current system are laid out in regulations, and these will be
repealed. I just happened today to say to myself: Maybe I should bring down to
the House the volumes it takes - all of the regulations. This particular act
will have thirty sets of regulations; thirty - 30 - sets of regulations. That is
what it will take to put this act into force. We have not seen these
regulations. We do not know what they contain. So I say, Madam Speaker, when
this act is proclaimed, we know the practice in this House is, that civil
servants will then go out and they will make the necessary regulations. If you
have thirty sets of regulations, thirty categories - there can be more
regulations than that, obviously - but if you have thirty categories of
regulations as contained in the latter part of the bill, I say to the minister,
the devil is in the detail and we have no substantive details.
Let me just illustrate to all hon. members the volumes it takes. I am holding
in my hands the two huge volumes. These are the regulations that govern the
current income assistance approach. How can the ordinary citizen ever, ever,
ever hope to be able to understand this massive amount of regulations? Yet, that
is what it takes. The current act, these are the regulations that govern the
income support policy and procedural manual for the Department of Human
Resources and Employment. How can the ordinary citizen ever, ever, ever expect
to understand all of these regulations?
Now we know that when the current act is passed there will be thirty
categories of regulations. It would be appropriate if we were to say to the
minister: Can you give us some idea as to what the changes will be in these
regulations? Some of them he has already outlined. However, we want to say to
the minister: Try to streamline things a little bit. Try to make your
regulations as user-friendly as you can.
We know there are some bureaucratic things that need to be put into
regulations, but make them as user-friendly and understandable to the ordinary
citizen as possible. Try to make sure that we do not end up with volumes and
volumes that are necessary to implement an assistance program in this Province.
Madam Speaker, there are some other things that I want to mention today in my
commentary before I do a clause-by-clause analysis of the bill. I want to get
back to some other things that are of special interest to me. You will note that
when I began I started talking about child poverty, and I do not want to go into
great detail, but I do want to note the connection between poverty and health. I
mentioned it earlier.
I am reading from a National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth,
reported in STAGES . It is called the Newfoundland Centre for Health
Information study. Let me quote what that study said. It said, "Poverty is
a major determinant of health and well-being... adequate income and a healthy
start in life have a long-term impact on the health status of children... low
income children are more than twice as likely to have low levels of vision,
hearing, speech, mobility, dexterity, cognition and emotion. They are less
likely to visit the