Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 9 December 2002 (44th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 42)
2002-12-09
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 9, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 42
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr, Speaker.
I rise to bring members' attention to the passing of one of Newfoundland
and Labrador's premier school administrators, Mr. Victor May, Principal of
Elwood Primary School, Deer Lake, formerly of Belleoram, and a long-time
resident of Pasadena.
Victor died as he lived - helping others. On Sunday, December 1, just one day
short of his fifty-second birthday, after having cleared the snow from his own
driveway and that of two of his neighbours, Victor died while cleaning the snow
from yet another neighbour's driveway.
As evidence of the high regard that Victor was held by his peers, last year
Victor was named Principal of the Year by the Newfoundland and Labrador School
Administrators Council for his outstanding character and his dedication to his
students. In 1994, the Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teacher Foundation
named him recipient of the Samuel R. Laycock Memorial Award for his outstanding
service to education by fostering co-operation between parents and teachers.
Victor was a director of the Kids Eat Smart Foundation, President of the
Pasadena Winter Carnival Committee, a member of the Crown of the Valley Economic
Development Board, a member of the Humber Valley Square Dancers, the Pasadena
Lions Club, and a faithful lay reader with St. David of Wales Anglican Church in
Pasadena.
Victor was liked and respected by all who knew him. His quick wit and ready
smile were his trademarks. At the funeral service on Wednesday past, students
accompanied by their parents, former students, retired teachers and teaching
colleagues were much in evidence as over 600 people crowded into the small
church to pay their last respects.
On Friday past, students and parents packed the Elwood School auditorium to
overflowing as they held a Memorial Service in Victor's memory; a service
which ended with teachers giving each student a lollipop in commemoration of
Victor's practice of giving each student a lollipop on their birthdays.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in extending deepest
sympathies to Victor's wife, Sadie, and his daughter, Melissa, on the passing
of one of life's true gentlemen.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Oxford Dictionary states the definition of a
"milestone" as "a significant event or stage in a life". Mr.
Speaker, on Sunday, December 8, 2002, Mrs. Katherine Mahoney of St. Bride's
experienced such a milestone. Yesterday Mrs. Katie, as she is well known to all
of us, turned ninety-nine years of age.
Mrs. Katie Mahoney was born in St. Bride's on December 8, 1903, to James
and Mary Bridget Young. During her long life, Mrs. Katie was a dedicated member
of the church community, always helping out at garden parties and fall fairs.
Mrs. Katie was a lady of faith, walking to church in all types of weather, up to
just a few years ago. Mrs. Katie is a true example that hard work does not harm
you. She was always busy and active around her home and her community.
Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, at the age of ninety-eight, Mrs. Mahoney
underwent major surgery and returned home in just a few days.
As a young boy growing up in St. Bride's, Mrs. Katie was my next door
neighbour and I was always amazed at her energy and enthusiasm for life.
Just think for a moment; Mrs. Katie lived through World War I, World War II,
the Korean Conflict, the Great Depression, and the days when Newfoundland was
still a country unto itself. The world has changed so much in the last century
and Mrs. Katie has lived to see it all.
She is, at present, the oldest citizen in the Cape Shore area. She still
resides in her home in St. Bride's and, while not as active as in previous
years, still manages to get up and around each day.
Mrs. Katie had several visitors to her home yesterday who brought best
wishes, and I call on all members of this hon. House to join with me in wishing
happy ninety-ninth birthday to a wonderful lady, Mrs. Katherine Mahoney of St.
Bride's. As we used to sing at our own birthday parties years ago, "We
hope she lives to be 100."
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate the Canadian Coast Guard
Search and Rescue 103 Squadron in Gander for recently completing the longest
offshore rescue mission in the history of the Cormorant Helicopter in Canada.
The single rotor helicopter, piloted by Mayor Gilbert Thibault, flew a round
trip of about 1,650 kilometres out to sea to rescue a seriously injured crew
member from the Berge Nord, a Norwegian Bulk Carrier off the East Coast.
Mr. Speaker, the mission, which started at 11:00 a.m. on December 4, ended at
8:00 p.m. that night, nine hours after it left Gander. Under normal conditions,
the Cormorant can fly about 1,100 kilometres without refueling, but the crew
fought stormy winds and icy conditions to refuel at the Hibernia Platform and
then travelled north 400 kilometres to the ship. They then returned to Hibernia
to refuel and then travelled another 350 kilometres back to St. John's to the
Health Sciences Centre.
Mr. Speaker, three Cormorant helicopters have replaced the old double rotor
Labrador Helicopters for Search and Rescue and, with this acquisition, it is
obvious from this rescue that these new machines will greatly improve search and
rescue efforts.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of this House I congratulate Major
Thibault and the rest of his crew including Captain Bob Belanger, Search and
Rescue Technicians Sargent Emilio de Chantal and Master Corporal Ron Kuhn and
flight Engineer Master Corporal Rob Vidido for their efforts in ensuring the
safe return of this Norwegian crew member and to all Search and Rescue Personnel
for their work in protecting our citizens.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main- Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to the graduating class of
the WISE program, Women Interested in Successful Employment, for the
Trinity-Conception Bay area. This is the sixteenth graduating class of this
program and I was privileged to be part of the graduation exercises at Fong's
Motel in Carbonear on Friday, November 29.
This twelve week exploration program is designed to enable women to overcome
barriers that hold them back in the workforce. The thirteen women who
participated in this most recent offering proudly accepted their certificates,
expressing the sentiments of appreciation to their mentors and facilitators, Ms
Carolyn Burke, Ms Karen Peddle and Ms Gloria Ford. For twelve weeks this group
explored not only skills required for successful employment but the importance
of building up a network of support resources and agencies.
At the celebration, representatives from different government departments of
HRDC and HR&E, spoke of their support for this very effective program, but
it was the words of one of the graduates, the valedictorian, Ms Verena Cole of
Harbour Grace which says it all, I quote,
"Speaking personally, I have been unemployed for quite some time and
have been lacking the courage and resources to change it. WISE has provided me
with all of this and more. I am now a woman with a career plan and the
determination to expand my horizons. Our women should know that if they find
themselves in a dead-end situation, there is help out there. It is here at
WISE!"
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of this House will join with me in
offering congratulations to the 16 th Graduating Class of the
Trinity-Conception WISE program and will agree their theme that, "The Sky
Is The Limit" is a most appropriate one.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Karen Pottle of St.
John's who has been the recipient of a major national fashion award in
twenty-five Canadian designers who received awards in Toronto from the Matinee
Fashion Foundation.
The Matinee Fashion Foundation was established in 1992 to provide financial
support to talented Canadian fashion designers. Ms Pottle plans to use the award
to hire two consultants to help her achieve greater efficiencies in her
production business.
as oiled cotton or oilskin to produce a range of outerwear. Exploits products
are sold in Boston, Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Seattle. Ms Pottle
was also recently commissioned to redesign the product lines for Grenfell
Handicrafts in St. Anthony, Atlantic Canada's oldest and one of its most
recognized brand name garment product producers in the region.
Ms Pottle is a very talented entrepreneur who has demonstrated her skills as
a clothing designer and manufacturer by winning this particular award four times
and each time she has used it to improve an aspect of her business.
I would like to ask the members of this House to join me in congratulating Ms
Pottle and recognizing the contribution of her work to the economic development
of this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary
Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: I rise today to inform hon. members that I was recently
presented with Memorial University of Newfoundland's 2002 President's
Report. The report, which highlights key achievements at the university in
2001-02, focuses on three areas of importance to the university: vision, action
and innovation.
Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to Memorial University and to all
post-secondary institutions in this Province. More importantly, we are committed
to our post-secondary students and to providing them with high quality,
accessible and affordable post-secondary education opportunities.
For this reason, we have enabled Memorial University to reduce its tuition
rates by 10 per cent for the past two consecutive years, making the current
tuition rate the lowest in Atlantic Canada and the second lowest in the country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, our new Provincial Student Loan Program has been
redesigned to better meet the needs of our students. We sought advice from
students, parents and educators and have implemented changes to further reducing
the debt of our graduates. We will shortly be starting an evaluation of our new
program being that we are now close to having one term in place. We have also
increased funding for student and graduate employment programs to assist
students in funding their education.
Our recent CareerSearch 2002 document tells us that our investment is
paying off. Since 1996, we have seen significant improvements in graduate
outcomes across the board. In particular, Mr. Speaker, this year's results
show a higher percentage of graduates had obtained full-time employment in the
year following their graduation from post-secondary institutions, and in
particular, employment here in our Province. Memorial University is a part of
this success.
Maclean's magazine ranked Memorial as one of the top five comprehensive
universities in the country -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Noting they have a significant amount of research activity and
a wide range of programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels, including
professional degrees.
Mr. Speaker, Memorial University's vision is to enable their students to
acquire a first-rate, well-rounded education, to provide its employees with an
excellent working environment, and to serve the needs of communities in this
Province and around the world.
Examples of key actions towards that vision in 2001-02 included a new
multi-million dollar partnership with Inco Limited to create the Inco Innovation
Centre on the St. John's campus. As well as other partnerships with
universities and industry in Atlantic Canada to undertake research on petroleum,
marine and health issues with the support of the Atlantic Innovation Fund.
The university created new student residences at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College
campus in Corner Brook and opened a new marine station near Gros Morne National
Park.
Memorial renovated its European campus at Harlow, England, and introduced new
programs bridging North America and Europe. And it created a comprehensive
recreation complex, including a new Field House on the St. John's campus.
Mr. Speaker, this government is proud of the high quality education offered
at Memorial University and the success rate of its graduates. I am pleased to
provide hon. members today with a copy of the 2002 president's report.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
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.
While we certainly look forward, also, to Memorial University of Newfoundland's
2002 president's report, we, on this side of the House, would like to see the
audit for 2001-2002 at Memorial University of Newfoundland. We have been looking
for that, Mr. Speaker, and it is time, I say to the minister -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: - it is time to allow the Auditor General to have a look at
the books of Memorial University of Newfoundland.
I really believed, to be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, that this government,
with its openness and its transparency, was going to bring in legislation that
would allow us to do that, but we are still waiting for that legislation, Mr.
Speaker.
I listened to the minister today and, sure, there are some good things
happening with post-secondary education in this Province, but, as I touched on
last week in this House, it is amazing that 51 per cent - and it is important -
51 per cent of first-time applicants who were added to the social assistance
caseloads of this Province in 2001 were people between the ages of eighteen and
twenty-nine; 51 per cent.
I ask the minister: Are there some stats that will show us how many of these
young people, between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine, are on social
assistance today because of the overwhelming debt loads that they have had to
carry, Mr. Speaker, in this Province.
We heard the minister talk, Mr. Speaker, about tuition cuts and we, too, are
pleased to see any help that can be given to post-secondary education. At the
same time as we are giving help on one hand, Mr. Speaker, we are taking on the
other hand, by the fees that are being put in place at Memorial University in
relation to the Field House, as the minister just touched on. We cannot give on
the one hand and take with the other, I say, Mr. Speaker. We have to be fair
across the board, and that is why we need to have a look at the books of
Memorial University.
We have to address the concerns that rural students face, Mr. Speaker, versus
urban students. We all know that tuition fees across the board are equal, but we
have a situation, Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker, if I could just finish for a moment?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. MANNING: We have a situation in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker,
where we have students who have transportation costs, we have students who have
housing costs here in St. Johns's, and we have to ask ourselves: In 2002, is
it right and proper for any government to be boasting when we have students
going to food banks? I don't think so.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Memorial University is an institution of which all Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians should be proud. We have seen recognition by Maclean's
magazine, which is one measure, not a perfect one, of recognition of the status
of the university. I think we are all pleased to see that happen.
The minister mentions two 10 per cent tuition reductions in the last two
years. She didn't mention the fact that the government committed to a 25 per
cent reduction in three years. So, another 5 per cent should be forthcoming,
which we hope will take place in the next year.
have been made to the student loan program, there is still a lost generation, I
call it, of students in the 1990s whose average cost of a university education
tripled from about $8,000 in 1989 or 1990 to about $25,000 for a four-year
education by the late 1990s. That is something that has yet to be dealt with,
Mr. Speaker. What has happened is, many of these graduates have been forced to
leave the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: That has to be addressed and fixed, Mr. Speaker, so we can
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions this afternoon are for the hon. the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, it would now appear that the entire country believes that there
was, in fact, a deal to develop the Lower Churchill. It started with the
Premier. Three weeks ago, the Premier said a deal was imminent. The Hydro Board
was even asked to review the terms of the deal and vote on it. Peter Penashue
said there was a deal on land claims. Representatives from the Government of
Quebec said there was a deal, and now the Premier of Quebec says that his
province and our Province reached a deal to develop the Lower Churchill.
Mr. Speaker, will the Premier finally concur with practically everybody who
has had anything to do with these negotiations, and admit that he had negotiated
an agreement to develop the Lower Churchill?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I might point out that I spoke with my counterpart, Premier Landry, on
Friday, before the weekend, and he clarified again, quite clearly, what his
position is, and that is that the discussions that we have had to date, he is
satisfied with the offer that is on the table from the point of view of the
Province of Quebec.
I indicated to him that obviously we are not completely satisfied with
respect to Newfoundland and Labrador and, in fact, the talks, Mr. Speaker - we
looked at the calendar and the
schedule - probably will not resume until after
Christmas.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec, on Friday, not only confirmed that they
had reached an agreement to develop the Lower Churchill, but he said that the
two sides had, what he called, a good offer, a good contract, and good
negotiations.
A contract, Mr. Speaker, implies -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question; he is on a supplementary.
MR. WILLIAMS: - that a deal was done with Quebec; and, if I can use a
little french, a fait accompli so to speak.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier now saying that Premier Landry
did not tell the truth to the Quebec media last week? Is that what he is saying,
that the Premier of Quebec is not telling the truth?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am at a little bit of a loss as to what the Leader of the
Opposition really wants.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: Let me make the statement again: I am at a little bit of
a loss as to what the Leader of the Opposition really wants. The Leader of the
Opposition wants for there to not be a deal. I inform him and the House of
Assembly that there is no deal, that the negotiations are not concluded, and
that they likely will not resume again until after Christmas, so I do not know
what the point of his questions is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in this House on November 18, the Premier said: Maybe even this
week. On November 18, he also said: Before the end of the week. On November 20,
he said: Sooner rather than later. On November 24, he said: So the business
case, you know, is very close to being finished.
It sounds like a deal to me, Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I would ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated yesterday that he believes
that all the fuss in recent weeks may actually strengthen his bargaining
position.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, thank you very much, Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier confirm that he, in fact,
negotiated the people of Newfoundland and Labrador into a weak bargaining
position? And now, as a result of the Opposition and the Board of Newfoundland
and Labrador Hydro questioning his judgement, he is now looking for a better
deal, in fact?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand that the Leader of the Opposition may want to live in the past.
We prefer -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER GRIMES: I know Howdy Doody. I know all about it.
Mr. Speaker, they may want to live in the past -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
They may very well want to live in the past and talk about the last thirty
years and so on in the Province. We are trying to look to the future and we are
still negotiating. The position of this government is that, unless and until we
sign something and present it to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador we are
always negotiating in the best interest of the people of the Province. That is
the circumstance that we have described to the people of the Province in the
last month, that is still the circumstance today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier acknowledge, based on his own statements, that
two former chairmen of Hydro are correct in saying that the deal he negotiated
was a bad deal and a sad day for Newfoundland and Labrador, while in the words
of Premier Landry of Quebec, it was a good offer, it was a good contract and a
blessing from heaven for Quebec?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is up to his old tactic again of
taking a comment out of context. The Premier of Quebec, when he used the idea
and the analogy of a blessing from heaven, was talking about clean energy
available in North America as a result of obligations under the Kyoto Accord. He
said that, in fact, any clean energy that comes on stream, such as the 2,000
megawatts from Labrador, would be a blessing from heaven. Not that it was not
necessarily a blessing from heaven for Quebec, but a blessing from heaven for
North America, for the world, for the continent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER GRIMES: Now, the Opposition does not like to hear that. They
would rather not have it in context and have it explained because they like to
cast the innuendo; but, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: There has
been no deal negotiated. The negotiations are still continuing and we, unlike
the Opposition, are trying to have a successful negotiation for Newfoundland and
Labrador, not another thirty-nine years of doing nothing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of
Finance.
Mr. Speaker, under the deal that Premier Landry says is a contract and our
Premier says does not exist, Hydro Quebec will be the sole lender for the Lower
Churchill project. Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance confirm that the
base interest rate charged by Quebec to finance the deal, with our own money,
will be in the range of 8 per cent to 9 per cent, and we will pay Hydro Quebec
$10 billion or more in interest charges over the life of the agreement?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I can confirm to the Opposition and to all the people of the Province is
that when government, if and when reaches a deal, all the details will be made
available to all the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Another question for the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, the last two
borrowings on record by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have been at
interest rates of 6.4 per cent and 4.61 per cent for an average cost of 5.5 per
cent. Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is simply this: If each
percentage point on the interest rate for a $4 billion loan from Quebec,
amortized over forty-five years cost $1 billion, why would we borrow from Quebec
at 3 per cent more which costs the people of Newfoundland and Labrador an
additional $3 billion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, why didn't you pick 16 per
cent or 20 per cent or 5 per cent? I will repeat again, when and if we reach a
deal with Quebec we will make all of the details known. Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite knows that rates vary for any deal, if and when there is one, whether
it is long-term financing or short-term financing. It depends on your stability
in the market. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I look forward over the coming days to
talking about our own loan bill and the rates of borrowing we can get in the
long-term markets.
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.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry today.
Over the last several weeks we have seen a $250,000 ad campaign in this
Province to promote: Good Things are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Other economic indicators tell us otherwise. For example, tax revenues in the
last decade, since this government came to power, have grown by only one-half of
1 per cent, which is why this government has become so dependent on one-time
measures.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is simply this: Can he confirm that
a consulting company has been recently hired to study rural development
associations and their place in developing the economy of rural Newfoundland and
Labrador? If he can confirm that, can he also confirm that in so doing that what
he is actually saying is that this government's economic performance and it's
stimulation of the economy over the past several decades, over the past several
years, have been simply an abysmal failure?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will certainly check. I am not aware of any consulting firms that have been
hired in the recent past for that particular purpose. I am sure officials in the
department from time to time hire consultants for one purpose or another.
The hon. Opposition House Leader made reference to the issue of zone boards,
and it is an issue that I personally took up with zone boards in this Province
some time ago. The major issue we have right now, and we would solicit the
support of the Opposition in this regard, is that all federally/provincially
funded agreements will be coming to an end on March 31, 2003. That is a matter
to be concerned about and that is a real matter when it comes to the efficient
workings of zone boards which give us the grassroots ideas to develop this
Province. That is where we need help from people. We are not interested in doing
anything to hurt rural Newfoundland. We are doing things to try to help rural
Newfoundland. If that takes a consultant to give us any guidance, so be it, we
will certainly do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The consultant has sent information out to zonal boards where it says that
they were looking at the options for the roles they could play in the future to
promote rural development. That is what this consultant is doing on behalf of
the government and the process. This is the same government that cut rural
development associations out of the picture in 1994.
Mr. Speaker, this government has said that good things are happening in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the Premier this question: If he
believes that great things and good things are happening in Newfoundland and
Labrador, is that why he has left a part-time minister as minister for the past
several months when other people have been waiting - and, more importantly - the
most senior economic department that people depend on has been left in the
part-time hands of another minister?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the Opposition House Leader speaking out in his usual role, in
protecting the Leader of the Opposition and the Official Opposition, because in
two questions, Mr. Speaker, maybe he is giving us insights into some of their
platform that the Leader of the Opposition refuses to talk about. He has talked
about the fact that we haven't increased our taxes. I guess they are going to.
They must be going to increase taxes for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,
because they are talking about how little the tax breaks - or the tax increases.
They talked about a policy of the Liberal government. We replaced development
associations by Regional Economic Development Boards, now called zonal boards.
He talked about that as if it is a bad thing, so I guess they are going to
reinstate all the development associations, the thirty or forty or fifty of them
that were around, some of which are still doing really good work, and now asking
about the appointment of a ministry.
His colleague to his right, the Energy critic, who was speaking on behalf of
the group one day when this particular point was made, as an acting minister,
talked about the fact that the Cabinet is already too big. The Cabinet of the
Liberals is already way too big, and if we ever form the government we will make
it much smaller.
Now we do know they are going to have a ministry of small business, because
that was announced during small business week. I guess they are going to have a
premier and a minister of small business, and nothing else -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: - because we have not heard anything else, so we will see
what happens next.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that department is the senior economic
department that drives the economy, sets the strategy for the economy. Frankly,
Mr. Speaker, what the Premier has missed is that what we are talking about is
you doing the right thing, Premier, and appointing a full-time minister to
guardianship over the economy. That is what we are talking about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary.
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask him this question, Mr. Speaker: Does he agree
with Christine Snow, the Executive Director of the Capital Alliance Zonal Board,
when she says that: big ideas or ideas that they have are not getting through
because of delayed decision making, unresolved decisions for over twelve months,
no source of funding, no guarantee of funding, not being able to plan?
Wouldn't you agree, Premier, that this is a result of having a part-time
set of hands on the most important Cabinet position for the economy of
Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would agree with two things for sure. One is that, because of
the lack of experience over there in terms of ever having been in a government,
except for one member, that they do not know the difference between an acting
minister and part-time. There is nothing part-time about the job that this man
is doing, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: He is full time.
Mr. Speaker, we do know an inconsistency and a contradiction when we see it,
because the Opposition House Leader, when he was the leader of that party, and
presented a Blue Book in 1999, said: We will cut out all grants and loans to
small businesses in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: That was their position in 1999.
Now you have the current leader who says: If I am elected Premier, it will be
me and a small business minister and that will be the government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
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 would suggest to the Premier that he read the Blue Book again,
because he is after adopting half our policies from the last election.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in May of 1999, government paid $930,000 for
the Ahelaid which is now called Hull 100 , purchased from Estonia.
The department estimated $2.9 million to purchase and refit this used vessel.
That figure is now $7 million and growing, Mr. Speaker, three-and-one-half years
after, and the Hull 100 is still not in use.
Mr. Speaker, why is it that almost ten years after officials of Works,
Services and Transportation recommended a vessel replacement policy, there is no
real or legitimate vessel replacement policy adopted by this government?
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 guess since 1993 it has been recognized in
this Province that we needed a vessel replacement program and, of course, since
that time we have taken measures to improve our fleet and to add to our fleet.
That great ship that he just mentioned is one we just purchased, and it is now
being done in the great District of Trinity North. This particular vessel right
now is being done in Clarenville in terms of the dockyard at Clarenville. I was
there the other day and everybody is quite happy that there is a lot of work on
the go in the dockyard in Clarenville. It is a very busy spot and people are
very, very pleased with it.
I like to put things in context for those members. I have been in this House
for fourteen years and I expect to be back here again for another fourteen, so
don't get (inaudible)
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: I want to put things in context.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. BARRETT: In the early 1990s, this government was faced with the close
down of a major industry in this Province. At the time that report was presented
to my department in 1993, we had a close down of a major industry in this
Province.
MR. J. BYRNE: Who closed it down?
MR. BARRETT: John Crosbie closed it down.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. BARRETT: I can continue on and explain why we - but he has a
supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say, Mr. Speaker, he did a good job of not answering the question.
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation explain
why government bought the Ahelaid, the Hull 100 , when they knew
that it was recommended by government officials that her sister ship be
purchased for parts? Wasn't this a clue that the Hull 100 was a
rustbucket, unfit for Canadian waters, which would cost millions to upgrade to
Canadian standards?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: The only rustbucket that exists is in the mind of my hon.
critic. He has been using rustbuckets for a long, long time. Our fleet is a
very, very efficient fleet. If you want to listen to the raves from Bell Island
right now, they are quite pleased with their ferry operation. Most of the people
around this Province are quite pleased with the operation of our ferries within
the Province, and have no great complaints. As a matter of fact, we only had
four or five shutdowns of our ferry service in this Province in this fiscal year
- four breakdowns - which is phenomenal in terms of the number of hours that
these vessels operate.
I want to put things in context. What I was saying before, we had a close
down of a major industry in Newfoundland and Labrador at the time that people
were recommending that we go out and buy new ships, but we had to make decisions
in terms of how we were going to spend our money in this Province.
When this government took office, there was no such thing as home care for
our senior citizens, and this government has committed $60 million a year for
home care.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. BARRETT: So, you have to put that in context. We could not go out and
buy all new cars, but we did buy a used one and we are getting the services out
of the used one just as good as we are getting out of the new ones.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St.
Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister is missing the boat on this one. The cost
for the Hull 100 now is almost triple what they had projected.
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation at least
attempt to answer this one? Will the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation explain why the Hull 100 was purchased before the actual
cost of upgrading in order to get Canadian standards approval was determined?
Why did this government not require Canadian government inspectors to inspect
this vessel before purchasing, to determine realistic costs of upgrading, when
this could have easily been done?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. J. BYRNE: I say to members opposite, will you relax and let the
minister hear the question?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. J. BYRNE: I will just say, did the minister hear the question?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: No. Okay, I will ask it again. Why did the government not
require Canadian government inspectors to inspect this vessel before purchasing,
to determine realistic costs of upgrading, when this could have easily been
done?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: All the necessary inspections were done on this vessel. We
knew the type of vessel we were buying when we bought it. The hon. member, if he
is against the great work that is being done in Trinity North now, I would like
for the hon. Member for Trinity North to tell me to get up and say so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Health and it concerns health care funding
in this country.
The per capita system of health care funding introduced by Paul Martin
resulted in 90 per cent of transfers for health care in the past three years
going to Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. So, 90 per cent of the increases
went to those three provinces.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Romanow Commission, we now have a
recommendation for needs based funding. The minister was at a conference of
health care ministers this last Thursday and Friday. Can he tell us whether he
got a commitment from other health care ministers across the country to support
this needs based funding and away from the per capita funding?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Indeed, as the hon. member opposite has referenced, I did have occasion on
Friday to meet with my counterparts from across the country to discuss some of
the particulars flowing from the Romanow Report. One of the key things in the
report, as the hon. member has referenced, and it is certainly something that is
of encouragement to us, is that Mr. Romanow, in his recommendations, did
recommend that future funding to the various jurisdictions, to the provinces and
the territories, be done on a needs basis, as opposed to strictly per capita. As
the hon. member pointed out, and all hon. members of this House know, on the
strictly per capita basis, the smaller jurisdictions, including Newfoundland and
Labrador, do not fare well. In fact, Mr. Speaker, on every billion dollars of
transfer the amount that would come to this Province would be some $17 million.
So, obviously, on a per capita basis, the kinds of monies that we would need, a
strictly per capita would not do it.
In fact, there was some discussion, but our meetings on Friday, as was
reported in the media, did not spend a great deal of time talking about the
money aspect of it. The issue was raised by myself and other representatives
from some of the smaller jurisdictions, because, obviously, it is a matter of
concern to us.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. SMITH: The only way that we will really get a fair deal in terms of
that, is if, in fact, they do follow up on the recommendation that it be done on
a needs basis. To this point in time, it is something that is being actively
pursued.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer, quickly.
MR. SMITH: The Ministers of Finance will be meeting shortly and the
Premiers will be meeting later on in January.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
adopt this approach, this recommendation, of the Romanow Commission report. If
the minister did not get the support of his other counterparts across the
to act on this recommendation?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in fact, the hon. member, if he were listening to
my answer, I did not say that we didn't get the support. In fact, what I
reported was what exactly happened at the meetings, that, in fact, there was
some discussion with regard to that issue and beyond that. I would point out, as
well, that we did have occasion to raise the issue of equalization. In fact,
going back to an earlier first ministers' meeting there was a commitment by
all first ministers in the country that, in fact, we need to review the whole
issue of equalization.
Quite frankly, in terms of health care and health care funding, beyond the
Romanow Report and the recommendations that are there, as good as they are in
terms of the needs based funding, I think we all recognize in this House and,
indeed, in this country that it is time to review the whole business of
equalization. The only way that jurisdictions like Newfoundland and other
smaller jurisdictions in this country will get a fair shake is if it is
recognized that -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. SMITH: - it is time to revisit and review the whole equalization
formula.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley, time for one quick
question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: My question is for the Minister of Human Resources and
Employment.
Employment in the Province for November compared with a year ago decreased by
2,400 jobs. Our unemployment rate stands at 17.1 per cent for an increase of 2.4
per cent, compared to the same month a year ago. Seasonally adjusted, the
unemployment rate stands at 18.5 per cent. The minister and others in government
continue to paint a rosy picture of GDP growth and to give a growing economic
forecast.
I ask the minister: Why has your government failed so many of our unemployed
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and what measures are you taking to assure
that employment opportunities in this Province more accurately reflect your
economic forecast or the GDP growth?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It is quite interesting to note that for twenty-two straight months we led
the country, I guess, in employment growth but not one word from the Opposition.
The good news about this year is that we still have a growth of 1.4 per cent
over last year. This year is also a record in terms of the number of people
participating in the workforce, some 57.8 per cent; the highest on record for
this Province. So the future does look good and we are very positive about what
is going to happen next year with the projects, with White Rose starting, Voisey's
Bay getting up in full swing. Unlike members opposite, who wanted to stop Voisey's
Bay, we want to move this economy forward and have the policies in place that
are working.
Mr. Speaker, we have had quite a bit of success when you look at it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now quickly to conclude his answer.
MR. RALPH WISEMAN: We have had 1.4 per cent growth in the number of
people employed in this Province this year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a
bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining
Act." (Bill 31)
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the
House not adjourn on tomorrow at 5:30 p.m. and an extension of that motion, that
it not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I also move Motions 5 and 6 on the Order Paper,
which again, pursuant to our own Standing Order, that the House not adjourn at
5:30 p.m. today; and Motion 6 -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Motion 6, pursuant to Standing Orders, that the House not
adjourn at 10 p.m. today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is about to put the motion. Members ought to know the rules. In our
own Standing Orders there ought not to be any interruptions when the Chair is
putting a motion to the House.
All those in favour of Motion 5, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
All those in favour of Motion 6, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This 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 some of the Big Game Management Areas, particularly Area 41 Sheffield
Lake in 2001, had opening dates of mid-October, but the dates have been changed
to September 14, 2002; and
WHEREAS the majority of big game hunters would prefer a later opening and
closing date; and
WHEREAS earlier opening dates can lead to loss of meat due to spoilage from
high ambient temperatures; and
WHEREAS the possibility of losing a crippled animal increases due to high
foliage growth existing in September; and
WHEREAS there is objection to hunters from harvesters of wild berries during
the peak harvesting month of September; and
WHEREAS the revenue generated from hunters would not be negatively affected
due to an October opening date;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to reinstate the opening date for the Big Game Hunting Season in Area 41,
Sheffield Lake, to commence the second Saturday in October and close the second
weekend of January of the following year, as in duty bound your petitioners will
ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of people who like hunting in the wild areas of
Newfoundland and Labrador are tempted early in the year to go hunting because
they have been waiting all year, waiting to make their plans, get out in the
outdoors and enjoy their hunting privileges that they have. So that temptation
is there early on in the season. The first week of the season many people will
get ready and plan their holidays to get out into the bush to do that hunting.
Most people, too, like to wait until later on in the year when the temperatures
get colder so that when they do go hunting, if they happen to be successful,
then they can take their time to hang their meat and do a little bit of rabbit
hunting or whatever, or do a little work around the cabin or wherever they are,
and not have to rush home.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, in a lot of the parks in Central Newfoundland
people come from all over the Province to avail of the hunting season,
particularly around Area 41. If they come from the East Coast to Central to
hunt, and happen to get their animal on the first day, then, because of the high
temperatures, Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HUNTER: Could I have leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Just to finish up.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you.
I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the government needs to take a
serious look at that to prevent the wastage of our very valuable resource with
our big game in the Province. So, I urge the department of wildlife to take a
closer look at this and make sure that this resource is protected so that it can
be there for many years for our people to enjoy at a time in the year when they
want to go.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition as well. 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 ungraded 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, this is a
section of road that I have referred to here almost on
a daily basis, where the people from Birchy Cove, Upper, Middle, Lower, Amherst
Cove, Kings Cove, Duntara, Keels, and those particular areas are asking the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the remaining three
kilometres of roadway from Birchy Cove to Bonavista. There has been a feeble
attempt this past four or five years to upgrade and pave this
section of road.
It started out to be five kilometres. Four years ago, the first phase of
upgrading and reconstructing that particular piece of five kilometre road was
started. Today, we are still standing here - I am still standing here - in this
Assembly asking that the three kilometres be upgraded and paved to provide the
people in the area with a decent road to drive over.
School children in the area have staged a demonstration. Mr. Speaker,
residents in the area have staged a demonstration. They have acted very
responsibly. They have not gone out and blocked the road. They had some
pamphlets made up - some information leaflets - where traffic would stop and
they would pass out their concerns and ask people to support them. They have
been responsible here in asking that this particular roadway be upgraded and
paved, and brought up to today's conditions.
Mr. Speaker, the people using this particular road pay the same amount of
money to buy their driver's licence. They pay the same amount of money and the
same taxes on gasoline when they refuel their machines. They pay the same taxes
and the same costs of going and registering their vehicles, as other people in
the Province. All they are asking is that they be provided with a decent road to
drive their vehicles over so that they might get to or from their place of
business, to and from the hospital, to and from services that are offered in the
Town of Bonavista.
This is one of the larger thoroughfares, or one of the only thoroughfares,
that leads into this particular community. Mr. Speaker, the traffic there is
such that it would certainly warrant a decent road. Bonavista and that
particular area are growing areas.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: There are new houses going up there every year, new
businesses, in spite of the downturn in the economy -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. FITZGERALD: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. FITZGERALD: All they are asking for, Mr. Speaker, is a decent road to
drive over, and have it brought up to the year 2002 standards.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise again today to present another petition on behalf of the residents of
the Bide Arm, Roddickton and Englee area. I will read the prayer of the
petition:
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 incinerator is located very close to the highway, making it an
eyesore to the area just before entering our community; and
WHEREAS since it is located in a valley, the same valley that our community
is located in, the prevailing winds cause smoke and fumes from the incinerator
to be funneled directly over our community; and
FURTHERMORE if there is no wind, the smoke just hangs in the air over the
community; and
WHEREAS there is a little stream that flows by the base of the incinerator in
a dump site, the stream then continues to flow out the valley into a larger
stream that flows into the harbour. The water should be tested in this stream to
see if there are contaminants present because our people catch and eat fish from
this water; and
WHEREAS we believe that all kinds of garbage is being burned at this site,
including materials that can contain toxic substances and harmful chemicals;
fast-growing cancers are reported to be caused by contaminates from these kinds
of waste products. In our community alone, within the time frame that the
incinerator has been in operation, there have been at least eight people die of
fast-growing cancers;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to immediately remove the incinerator before more health and environmental
problems are realized.
As in duty bound your petitions will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition certainly says the vast majority of
it. The incinerator is in the valley that Bide Arm is situated in. It is very
close to the main highway that you must travel on to get to Bide Arm, Englee,
and back towards Roddickton. It is, as I have said on other occasions here in
this House, approximately one kilometre from the town. It is downwind from the
prevailing winds in the area, and there is a small stream that runs very close
by the incinerator and runs out through town. Certainly, while it mentions the
contamination of the stream, there are major concerns from some of the people in
the community who have wells in close proximity to this small stream, that there
could be potential contamination of their drinking water. Certainly, Mr.
Speaker, with the town's water supply not being very far from the incinerator,
there are major concerns from the people there in the community about possible
effects on their water supply, the community water supply, from smoke and
residue and what have you blowing from the incinerator: dioxins, furans and what
have you, blowing over into the water supply.
Mr. Speaker, these people recognize that the Province is in the process of
bringing in a new waste management program, and they recognize that this could
be a very long endeavour, the final implementation of a new waste management
strategy and a change to regional dump sites and regional waste disposal sites,
and a change towards more recycling and those types of things. They recognize
all of this, but what they are really concerned about is that this will happen
in five to ten years time.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, just a few seconds to clue up?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, they are very concerned about the impact on
their health. As I have said, there have been quite a number of people in this
community who have been diagnosed with fast-growing cancers in recent times.
While we do not know exactly what causes it, they would like to have an answer.
They would like to have a study done to see if it is caused by the incinerator,
and, in as expeditious manner as possible, they would like to see the
incinerator closed down in the short term and replaced with some other form of
waste disposal.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of fifty-eight retired teachers
here in the Province, Mr. Speaker. A part of the petition reads:
We, the undersigned, all members of the Retired Teachers' Association of
Newfoundland and Labrador present at BGM 2002, wish to register our support for
and agreement with the recommendations made within the brief on the urgent need
for increases to the pensions of this Province's retired teachers. We
respectfully request that you give this matter your immediate attention, for the
retired teacher constituents of Newfoundland and Labrador are facing a very real
financial crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I also received several letters from retired teachers in my own
district. Just to read a copy, if I could, this letter was sent to Premier
Grimes.
Dear Mr. Grimes, I am a retired teacher who is proud of my years of dedicated
service to the children of this Province. Unfortunately, my retiring years are
overshadowed by the inadequacy of my current pension. The Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador last provided an increase in retired teachers'
pensions in 1989. The increasing cost of living since that time places me in a
precarious financial situation.
My purpose in writing to you is to request that government once again grant
annual ad hoc increases to teachers' pensions. I respectfully ask that this be
made a priority. I appreciate your anticipated assistance and I recognize your
acknowledgment that this request is both just and timely.
Mr. Speaker, I have received several of these letter from retired teachers
throughout my own district, and I am sure all members of the House have received
those as they put forward what they believe to be a very genuine concern in
relation to their pensions, Mr. Speaker. I pay particular notice to the second
paragraph where it says: The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador last
provided an increase in retired teachers' pensions in 1989.
I ask the question: Who was in power in this Province in 1989? These retired
teachers have put many, many years of service into our schools and our education
system, and they have put many, many hours into extracurricular activities that
are a part of it, and I guess have given us the opportunity over the years to
give our children an all-round Class A education. I think it is time we took a
serious look at this. These people have been in a bind since 1989. The people in
my district whom I have talked to, the retired teachers in my district, deserve
to have government take a very serious look at this situation, and look at what
they can do in providing the proper compensation for these people.
I think we have a situation here where these people have played a very vital
role, an important role, in the lives of our children, and I think it is time we
take a serious look at least in sitting down at the table and seeing what
justice can come to the situation in which the retired teachers find themselves.
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, continuation of the adjourned debate on
second reading of Bill 23,
An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And
Employment Support To The People Of The Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am very pleased today to stand and speak to
An Act Respecting The Provision
Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province.
I think this piece of legislation is one in a number of social program policy
changes that, I think, reflect a new direction for government; one that I am
very proud to be associated with, a history, going back, looking at the human
rights legislation that was brought in in the late 1990s, early 2000. As well as
the Child Care Services Act which looked at how we provide care to children in
their homes, how we assist child care providers to do that and recognizing that
having a well-educated workforce to take care of our children is a very
important component of valuing children as our resource for the future.
Also, I would like to speak a little bit about the Adoptions Act, which I
think, as well, has been one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in
the country. It has been touted by many groups that are very interested; many
governments that are interested in legislation, that this piece of legislation
allows people from all walks of life now to have a different view and one that
has been listened to with respect to adoption. It respects the child. It
respects the adult, and it respects current adoptive families so that they do
not have to live in fear where they are not able or, at this point in time,
able, at least, to go forward and identify their birth child.
As well, Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to talk about the nurse
practitioner act, which, as well, I think is a very important piece of
legislation in the social agenda, which allows rural communities, but also, more
importantly, urban communities that often have difficulty finding a full
complement of practitioners, the ability to use nurse practitioners. I think all
of these pieces are very important and very reflective of a social agenda which,
I think, is very progressive Liberal legislation and one that I am very proud to
be associated with.
This particular piece of legislation around renewing an income support
program is one that is long overdue. As we know, the current legislation is over
twenty-five years old. It was written at a time when people had a different view
of social assistance, when people had a different view of why the program was in
place. We all know this is a program of last resort, but it is also a program
that affects people at any point in their lives. We know, in fact, today, Mr.
Speaker, that many people, although they are working, from time to time during
the year will often have to avail of social assistance to help them get through
a very difficult time. Maybe there is a work stoppage or maybe there are some
unnecessary - not unnecessary, but situations that have not been able to be
recognized in time to plan for. It is a program that is there to help people
when they most need it and I think, again, a number of very progressive changes
have been made over the last number of years to assist people.
In addition to providing the 7 per cent increase that was provided for all of
the public sector a while back, again, reflective of some of the changes that
are required. I think the very fact that in this new legislation there is an
option for renewing social assistance rates at an automatic period of time, I
think that is very important.
I think one of the most important pieces of legislation, as a forerunner to
this, is around the National Child Benefit that allows people now - whether they
are receiving social assistance or whether they are working to continue to
receive the National Child Benefit. I think this is very, very important because
it works to enhance people's self-esteem to allow them to move off social
assistance without the fear of losing a benefit associated with children's
care through the National Child Benefit. As you know there are two components to
this. There is a component that is associated with providing provincial funding
for child care programs and services, and also there is the federal piece.
Our Province was one of the few, if not the only province, receiving the
National Child Benefit that did not implement the clawback. In other words,
allowed social assistance recipients to keep the portion of the provincial as
well as the federal allocation. Originally, when this was put in place, the
federal government provided the money on the condition that we would withdraw
that money from social assistance clients and put it over into an area of our
population whereby low-income workers could avail of these services. What we, as
a government, proposed to do under that legislation was to, again, focus on
low-income workers to assist them in whatever way we could. As well, we wanted
to ensure that people currently receiving social assistance would not be
penalized in any way because we recognize that, without a doubt, people do not
choose social assistance. People are receiving social assistance because it is a
program of last resort and because they are going through a difficult time, or a
time of transition in their lives. It is a program that we believe is most
important. Therefore, we wanted to recognize that in a new piece of legislation.
In this legislation I think it speaks to the intent of where we are in terms
of social policy. This is one of the few pieces of legislation that has been
written which has a
preamble, and you will say: Well, what is the importance of
a
preamble? A
preamble, in this particular case, sets out the intent and the
philosophy of what is trying to be achieved with this piece of legislation. It
talks about promoting self-reliance and well-being. It is not just a piece of
legislation that identifies how much money you get regardless of what your
situation is. It speaks to participating in community life and it talks about
alleviating poverty as part of the social policy goals of this government - and
ones, I think, we feel quite confident to stand by.
It also speaks to the delivery of income and support programs, the social
assistance programs. This really is about showing the respect, the dignity and
the privacy that every individual is entitled to, and that this program be
delivered in an equitable, accessible, coordinated and fiscally responsible
manner. In other words, while you take into consideration the individual needs
of people you have to be fair in how you actually implement the program, that
you have to be recognizing and always aware of the fact that there are
individual differences. People's needs will vary, depending oftentimes on
where they live, on the programs that they can access, and also the needs they
have at a particular point in time.
I think the provision of a drug card is another good example, that while
people move off social assistance and into the workforce they are able to
sustain that drug card. That allows them, again, the self-reliance and the
confidence oftentimes to move into the workforce and to be able to make the jump
that gives them that hand-up to get them into a new form of life and perhaps
move away from that program of last resort.
Another component of the
preamble, which I also think is very important, is
that it recognizes people encounter circumstances that affect their
self-reliance and may require income support to assist them with meeting their
basic needs. Any government is put in place to meet an individuals and a
community's basic needs. This government reflects on that very policy in this
new Bill 23, which allows people the dignity and recognizes that their own
self-reliance may be impaired through no fault of their own. It is not about
fixing blame. It is about fixing a solution and it is about providing
opportunities. This piece of legislation, specifically, provides those kinds of
opportunities by allowing employment to become something that now is a flexible
option for people.
Whereas before it was often a detriment, and perhaps too many
walls were in place.
We recognize that people, generally speaking, prefer to move on on their own
path; prefer not to avail of these programs. We recognize that there are people
who will always need income support programs. Again, through no fault of their
own but because of the situation they find themselves in. That program will
always be there for people to avail of it as they need it.
Another part of the
preamble which I think, again, speaks to the philosophy
of where we are going is that people may benefit from a variety of supports and
services to help develop the skills and abilities necessary to prepare for
access and to keep employment. That is critical because employment is critical
for people moving forward in their lives. We recognize again, it is a philosophy
of providing a hand-up to people who need to move on, who need access to that
job and giving them the confidence and the support they need oftentimes to do
that. This legislation provides the parameters, not only in the
preamble but in
the many components because it is quite a detailed piece of legislation.
Again, it is not one that was sat in the back corners where a group of people
got together and said: Now, this is what we want to do. This legislation is the
culmination of many, many months of hard work. In fact, many years. I know the
initial process began when I was the minister back in 1996 in the Department of
- the then - Social Services. When we started the whole process of bringing
together the Departments of Health and Community Services and the Department of
Human Resources and Employment because philosophically we believed that it was
more important to align the human resources, the employment, the job creation
part with the social assistance programs because it was a natural fit, and also
by moving all of the program areas under the Department of Health and Community
Services.
It also recognizes that persons with disabilities face unique barriers to
employment. Again, these policies were created through vigorous consultation
over a number of years by people who have vested interests, by the community at
large, by people with disabilities, by people who are mothers and sisters and
brothers and fathers of people with disabilities, who spoke to the issues of
what it is like day to day living. We recognize their concerns and their issues,
and we believe in this legislation. We provided solid groundwork so that people
definitely now have an advantage around the kinds of supports they have. We
recognize, as was recognized the other day in this House of Assembly, that we
still have a lot of work to do. We still have many things we can improve upon,
but when you have a basis like this legislation I think it is quite easy to say
that the footing is there and the groundwork is done to allow people to continue
to move forward, regardless of whether they have disabilities or no
disabilities.
I think perhaps most importantly, of all of the components of the
preamble,
speaks to the partnerships between the government, the people and the community
groups, because over the last seven years - speaking from my former life, I know
that it was often a very difficult environment to come in and to state your case
and try to feel that you were working in a partnership with government. I can
honestly say that this government, over the last number of years, has reached
out to communities, to groups, to be much more inclusive of the kinds of
policies that we want to put forward because they are not our policies, they are
your policies. They are the polices of the people, and we believe the only way
you can possibly put them forward is by going to the people for their input.
This is not our piece of legislation. I would say to the people of the Province
and to hon. colleagues, this is your piece of legislation. Again, that has been
vetted through the people of the Province and developed by the people of the
Province.
Also, I would have to acknowledge the very fine work of many individuals who
are now in senior positions in the Department of Human Resources and Employment,
and who have been working there for many years in various capacities. The
current deputy minister, who has worked a number of years in the Department of
Human Resources and Employment, previously in social services. He has done fine
work and has been instrumental in bringing together the culmination of all of
his consultative work and putting together what, I believe, is a very clear
picture of what the people said. Are there opportunities for improvement?
Absolutely. Again, I think that as the culture of the Province changes, as
peoples needs change, I think this legislation still supports the groundwork for
those changes to occur. We are open to making any necessary changes in the
future that may be required based on a partnership, consultative method and
approach so that we can continue to enhance and build upon legislation like
this.
Mr. Speaker, without any further delay, I want to very firmly stand here
today and support my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources and Employment,
in what I consider a very positive, a very open, a very consultative piece of
legislation that is one I am very proud to be associated with and I urge all
hon. members to support this piece of legislation.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to start off by saying I agree with the minister in his
introduction. The highest measure of a society is how we treat our less
fortunate. It is a very true statement and a very powerful statement. I think
here today, being at my age and in very good health and what not, we do not
think of ourselves in a very unfortunate situation because the world offers many
possibilities. I think when we move around in society or we move around, it is,
in that circumstance, hard to place ourselves in the position of someone who is
less fortunate. I would like to think that whatever happens tomorrow I will have
some value in society. I know I believe that I have some value. The thing is,
sometimes we become - in circumstances we find our self-esteem, our value, as we
see it, has gone down because of how society treats us. It has made us think
that way of changing us as individuals.
There are so many things that are out of our control, such as accidents. The
changes to put us in that circumstance. One of the things I think about is that
we got up and talked a lot about soft tissue injuries which the insurance
industry says they cannot afford. It was one of the things that was rather
important. We went out there - and the industry surveyed the people and the
government surveyed them and found that people want to be protected. They do not
want to be left out in a situation where they could find themselves in an
environment that they have no control over, and for no good reason. It was the
reason insurance was ever so important, to have no loopholes there, to have
complete protection, and the people who resided there, I think, had expressed
that feeling, that I had completely agreed with.
One of the things also, outside of that, unfortunately finding ourselves in
the position, is the size of the problem. When we go out there and look at the
need for income support, in places like the District of St. Barbe, very rural
areas, the size of the problem is a problem in itself. We cannot deal with it
because the problem is so big. I think if we had the jobs out in rural
Newfoundland and a small percentage were in need of income support, we wouldn't
look at it the same way we do today.
When I was elected, the thing that people asked me at interviews was, you
know: What is your number one priority? The number one priority in rural
Newfoundland has to be jobs, and we have not come to grips with or we have not
dealt with jobs in a very effective manner in rural Newfoundland.
Earlier today, in Question Period, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development asked, why are we out there today with - part-time Minister of
Industry, Trade and Rural Development. This department was supposed to go out
there and take a lot of the responsibility for creating the employment that
would be in rural Newfoundland. It has not been effective or, certainly, the
results have not come through in order to have the jobs, to create the economy,
to go out there and have an impact on our society, where there would be a
positive environment, an opportunity of getting a job, to come off income
support, to go out there and get into the workforce. It is very unlikely. For
many of us to go out there, it is not a matter of going around the corner or
down the street or to the next community and finding a job, it means moving
away, it means going to places like St. John's or places like Fort McMurray or
wherever to find a job. Those are major steps. They are not small decisions,
when you leave an environment that you are completely familiar with and have to
move away to something you have never really looked at.
A lot of those people out there who do have to find income are not the young
people who are coming out of school and have the means to move and travel, they
have their lives in front of them. Many of them have most of their lives behind
them and grew up in circumstances and an environment that did not treat them
unkindly. Now, to get out of certain circumstances that they have found
themselves in, means moving away at such great distances and such an unfamiliar
environment. It is quite a step.
I think, when I go back and look at the possibilities, it is not because the
possibilities were not there. When I look at the District of St. Barbe, I have
always said there were all kinds of possibilities, it is just that there has
never been a will to take the resources that we have, take all those
possibilities, and make them work for us. Some of the approaches, I suppose, to
doing that - as a volunteer I was involved in the community, I went out and had
an IAS process. We have gone out there. My particular group of communities are
very small. It is a group of very small communities, and one of the challenges
we faced in dealing with the problems we have, in order to structure our
society, is to bring those communities together. This IAS had gone out and
brought the leadership of the communities together and had put a number of
solutions on the table, and it worked well.
One of the things that devastated me, I suppose, as we went through the
process, is it had to come to an end, not as a group, but to have any financial
support. It wasn't designed to deal with the problems in rural Newfoundland,
it was designed for the small and medium-sized businesses in Ontario and it was
just taken and put into rural Newfoundland, which is just not good enough, if
you look at it. You have to go out there and design things to fit the problem.
We have to go out and understand and identify the problems and then look at the
possible solutions. I don't think that we have had the commitment to go out in
rural Newfoundland and identify the problems. If you don't identify, you
cannot very well offer solutions that are effective.
I think if we were to do that, the opportunity to create the employment
opportunity to move all of our workforce into possibilities, I suppose, would be
created and then it would be created for everyone. Then that would take the
burden of our income support to move ahead.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. YOUNG: I said the possibilities have never been looked at or have
never been developed. I think they have left us to the wall, kind of thing. We
have never been allowed to hit the wall I suppose, but we have never been pulled
away from it. When I look at the possibilities - and I continuously talk about
when we had changed from the groundfishery into the shellfish industry, the
shrimp industry in particular on the Northern Peninsula. What possibilities do
we have? How far can we develop this industry? Which would benefit the entire
Province if it was developed in a more efficient manner than what it is today.
But we have always just looked at it as: this is enough to move those people
from here to there; and not see a need to move them further, which is quite
unfortunate.
Port au Choix, for example - I use it many times - if they had been out of
there and located - like many places, I think, in this Province with the
advantages that they have, that town would have gone and maybe tripled its
workforce. Instead of that, two years after the shrimp quota came on line in the
northern shrimp, they had less work out of that plant then they did before the
northern shrimp came on line. That is unheard of. It is unreasonable for those
things to happen.
One of the other things I think about is the forest industry. They have never
gone out and we have never changed with the times. That industry was out there
and they seen the downward pressure and the traditional way of doing business
was going in the woods with a chainsaw and your (inaudible) and being able to
make a living. That industry has certainly come under a lot of pressure. I think
of one town in my district, Hawkes Bay, was primarily built around the forest
industry. Instead of going out there and finding solutions and knowing they
needed solutions - that we have gone on for many years. It is only recently that
we put together an organization to go out there and have a consultant look at
the different issues that is facing the industry and look at the possibilities
of how to move ahead.
So many times I think we have gone out there - technology has come and we
have taken it with resistance instead of embracing it and moving ahead, because
from there, I think, the jobs that we would have would be better jobs and
include more people. Then again, it would make our economy that much greater,
which is my argument for the impact in our income support.
I look at education; if we are going to break the cycle we have to have our
youth, our children, going out there and not learning in poverty. Many times you
hear, with the different programs that we have in place, that you cannot have
children learning if they are hungry. It is just not possible. I think that
education is certainly the way to break the cycle, to contribute to the economy.
Unfortunately, as we go out today, as we are educating our children, and as they
grow and move away to places like St. John's and they get their secondary
education, is that they are not returning because the economies and the
environment have not been moving ahead, I suppose. Rural Newfoundland seems to
be falling back and we are not looking for the solutions
whereas the urban areas
are being developed. We are looking, and that is how we are developing our
society around urban centres versus what the rural areas of this Province have,
or any part of Canada, from what I understand. It is not being looked at as a
choice, and we are not developing it and not seeing what potential it has and
what the possibilities are, as I said. If we were to sit and look at what it
would take for rural economies to work, I am quite sure the possibilities are
there the same as urban; but if we have not stretched the emphasis on the rural
as we have of the urban, therefore the urban society has moved along.
As well, with our kids and their dreams, so many times, I think, when the
kids go out there, if their dreams are of basic needs, then obviously they
cannot be filled with dreams of prosperity and the dreams that a lot of kids
have.
Today, if you do not have a sense of belonging as a child, the chances of
having a sense of belonging as an adult and being productive in society, I would
think there is a connection there. We have to start off with our children in the
society and have a sense of belonging, and I think that has to be a priority
with our society. The peer pressure that comes from kids today, and I assume
there was always peer pressure, but it seems today there is much more of it,
with the clothing and the sports and, you know, the toys that kids have. To have
that peer pressure has to be extraordinary. When you go into our society on the
lower scale of our economy, that pressure has to be extremely difficult on
parents who are trying to make do and trying to bring everything together,
which, I suppose, would bring you into your health.
I know, in dealing with people in rural Newfoundland, with the communities
being so small and being apart, the services are offered in only a certain
distance, I suppose. You can live an hour or more away from a hospital or your
government worker to deal with, so transportation is an issue that we have not -
it is certainly a challenge in rural Newfoundland, that you would not think of
in an urban centre, like here, when you are dealing with the problems that we
have, that transportation would be so important, but transportation is indeed
important and there is a need to be close to those services if you are in need
of those services, I guess.
One of the other things is diet. Sometimes when the financial situation is
not great, a diet becomes such a problem. That is something that is extremely
important to the health - and that is a cycle that goes in itself. If the health
of the individual is not being maintained by a proper diet and whatnot, then the
cycle as it goes, and we see it so many times in our elder people, is that they
are not maintaining a good diet and then their health is a downward spiral.
One of the things about the bill that I think about somewhat is the penalties
towards the people who break the rules. I always had a problem, when you find
yourself in circumstances with income support, that you need the penalties. It
is a much-added pressure into how you maintain your standard of living.
I would just like to conclude with the fact that, as I said in the beginning,
I agree with the minister in his opening remarks. The highest measure of a
society is that it treats its less fortunate. I think we should always strive to
make sure that we include all the people in our society and make sure that they
have a decent standard of living.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to speak at second reading on this bill,
An Act Respecting The
Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The Province. It is
a new name for what has been known as social assistance in the Province. In
reading the
preamble, and listening to the Minister of Finance emphasizing the
preamble, it is an attempt to suggest that we have a different approach to the
provision of income for people who need it than we had before.
Mr. Speaker, I want to read from the provisions of the
preamble and discuss
some of the aspects of the current delivery of social assistance or income
support in this Province. The
preamble says, "AND
WHEREAS the delivery of
income and employment support programs shall respect the dignity and privacy of
the individual and be equitable, accessible, co-ordinated and fiscally
responsible..." That follows after the first
preamble which says,
"WHEREAS the promotion of self-reliance and well-being, participation in
community life and the alleviation of poverty are social policy goals...".
Mr. Speaker, this is a big shift. It is a shift from what I think a lot of
people expected and suspected was a basic right of citizenship, that you not be
permitted to starve, that you be given the basic dignity of having a shelter
over your head, of nutritious food to eat and clothes on your back as a basic
right of citizenship - not something directed at something else, the promotion
of self-reliance. We are all very happy to see self-reliance promoted, but to
place a piece of legislation upon which people are primarily dependent for the
basic elements of existence in life in this context, I think, is wrong. Not only
is it wrong, Mr. Speaker, but we have in this legislation the suggestion that
these programs are delivered based on a function of dignity, the dignity of the
person, and that the privacy of people is respected. That, Mr. Speaker, is very
far from the reality of people who are in receipt of income support from this
government in this Province today. You merely have to look at the amount of
benefits that people are given under income support to decide for yourself
whether or not people who are in receipt of income support or social assistance
are treated with dignity.
If you were to ask yourself what a single person required for the basic
necessities of life, Mr. Speaker, what would you think the monthly amount would
be? What would you think a person would need to live on, to be able to survive
for a full month? If you were on social assistance and your only means of
support - you had no other means of support - what would you need to be able to
live?
Well, the basic rate, Mr. Speaker, is $97 a month. That is the basic rate of
social assistance for someone in this Province who is said to be living with
relatives. If the reason for your assistance is unemployment, this is, the basic
rate is $97. If you are living with non-relatives, it is a great sum of $138 per
month.
Mr. Speaker, there recently was done a survey in this Province by the
Nutritionist Association, and they do it on an annual basis. They look at what
is the basic requirement for an individual for a nutritious food basket, and
they compare the prices. They look at the prices in the supermarkets in the
various parts of the Province to come up with what is the minimum cost of
providing a nutritious food basket for an individual. That nutritious food
basket for a single individual in Newfoundland and Labrador is, in a rural area
near St. John's, $42 per week. That gives you about $168 per month as a
requirement for nutritious food for one person in the St. John's area. In the
central area - they vary around the Province, not by much, by a couple of
dollars each way. In Central Newfoundland, rural, $40.50 for a single man per
week, $160 a month. Yet, the Department of Human Resources and Employment
suggests that the basic rate of social assistance for an individual - a single,
unemployed person - a proper rate is $138 when they are living with
non-relatives; for example, boarding. If you are boarding with someone, if this
person is boarding with a non-relative, they are expected to be able to pay
board and live on $138 a month. That is for everything. That is not just food.
That involves personal care, whether it be toothpaste, toothbrush, personal care
items, clothing, anything that you need, plus food - $138 a month maximum. Yet,
the nutritionist will tell us that the minimum requirement for nutritional food
for a single person for a month is $168. That is just food alone. Somehow or
other, this individual is supposed to get food, shelter, clothing, and personal
care needs, all attended to for $138 when food alone, nutritious food alone,
costs $168, or $160-plus. Is that, I ask you, a recognition of the dignity of a
person who lives on social assistance?
I can go through example after example, all the way up the scale, of
individuals with families, couples, single parents, and look at the nutritious
food basket alone, compare it with the social assistance rates, and see how
miserably people are treated.
When the consultation took place - the minister and various members on the
government side have talked about this consultation that took place for people -
one of the fundamental issues that came up every single time was that the people
on social assistance, the people in receipt of income support, are not receiving
enough money to be able to live and live properly. A fundamental problem, and
yet not addressed in this legislation except falsely in a
preamble which
suggests people are going to be treated with dignity. That is not the case.
When we see other examples of social assistance rates that are being given
for rent, for example, again we have to use statistics because these are what we
need to go on. The average rent for a two bedroom apartment in St. John's in
October, 2002, is $589. The average rent for a one bedroom apartment in St. John's
in October, 2002, is $510. Yet, what does this government provide for rent? One
hundred and forty-nine dollars for a single adult living alone, renting a room,
apartment or house, $149. For a family renting an apartment or a house, $372.
There is an additional amount. There is a special additional assistance that can
be available for mortgage or rent, of $61, bringing the total up for a family to
$433. That is the absolute maximum, Mr. Speaker, and that has not changed in
years. Yet, the rent has gone steadily up - to the point where the maximum is
$433 for a family. Yet, a two bedroom apartment in St. John's, for example,
would cost in excess of $500 - in fact, $589 - for a two bedroom apartment in
St. John's as of October, 2002.
How can we possibly suggest that a fundamental principle of this legislation
is that people shall be treated and deserving of dignity, and the program and
the delivery of income and employment programs respect the dignity and privacy
of the individual?
It is fundamentally wrong, Mr. Speaker. What is the result of that? The
result of that is that people who live on social assistance are constantly
deprived of the necessities of life. They do not have adequate shelter. They
cannot pay their light bill. They do not have enough food to eat. What does that
mean? It means their health deteriorates. They cannot get themselves in a
situation where they are going to improve their life. In fact, they are part of
a downward spiral of bad health, bad opportunity, and bad living conditions.
That is the state of people who live on social assistance today in this
Province, and it is a shame, Mr. Speaker.
How, also, are people on social assistance or income support treated by this
government in terms of dignity, respect and privacy? Let's look at age. There
are special categories. Young people under twenty-four are treated in ways that
are discrimination to them based on age. They receive lesser amounts of support
and access to programs - access to apartments. There are special categories for
people over thirty being treated one way and people under thirty being treated
another. This is pure discrimination based on age, Mr. Speaker. Yet this
government, instead of having policies that do not discriminate, wait for
somebody out there who can afford to do it or get someone to challenge it on the
basis of the Charter of Rights based on discrimination, based on age. We have
that happening in our Province because people who are on social assistance are
being treated differently on the basis of age. There is a definition of adult in
the act, and the definition of adult should apply to all adults who are eighteen
years of age and over, and not discriminate on the basis of age.
We have young people, single parents, for example, who are students, who are
treated in a way that causes them to be unable to go to post-secondary education
because the shelter component of their student loan is clawed back by this
government. Instead of allowing a person who is on social assistance to attend
university, to only borrow that which is required to get their education, this
government has decided to claw back the shelter component and make all of the
expenses of a person, perhaps a single parent who has to pay for child care and
clothes, diapers and all of the things that are required for a child, all of
that becomes a part of their student loan debt, instead of just the cost of the
education itself, not really giving them a chance.
One of the consequences, too, is that women who are single parents - and
there are men single parents, too, of course, but 95 per cent, or close to 100
per cent of the single parents we are talking about, are actually women trying
to get ahead and get to a situation where they can be self-reliant and
independent. To go to post-secondary education is a big step. It takes them
longer. Many times they have to do fewer courses because of the responsibilities
of parenthood, and this is something that takes place on a regular basis. They
have to spend longer times at university or other post-secondary institutions
and end up borrowing more money because they happen to be in that situation.
Yet, the social assistance or the income support is clawed back by the
department as part of the shelter component. We see that happening continuously
in this Province despite complaints by us in the New Democratic Party and
complaints by single parent associations in the past.
I use some examples of how individuals are treated by this department and by
government in terms of them being on social assistance. We have had complaints,
Mr. Speaker, about people's lack of privacy, lack of dignity, and how they are
treated in going to the offices of social services. Down in Marystown, for
example, to apply for social assistance and income support in Marystown you go
to a wicket in an office, the same place where people are applying for
unemployment insurance. You go to a wicket and you are asked to answer
questions, not in privacy. All the people waiting in the line can hear because
you are not sitting down in an office with a social worker. You are talking
outside of a wicket to somebody working for the Department of Human Resources
and Employment, and all the people around you can hear you answer questions and
be asked questions about your personal circumstances, and why you are there, and
why you need assistance, and what is going on. That is not treating people with
dignity, Mr. Speaker. That is, in fact, invading their privacy and taking away
their privacy and taking away their dignity.
We have seen examples as well, Mr. Speaker, in an area that is known across
this country in terms of the rules of social services departments or social
assistance rules across the country. It is known derisively as the
Spouse-in-the-House rule. I will, for a moment, explain how it has come to be
called that, Mr. Speaker. The reason is, of course, when the department of
social services, or in this case the Human Resources and Employment Department,
determines a rate of assistance, it is based on what means of support or income
an individual has. Usually we are talking about women, most often women with
children, who are forced to apply for social assistance because they have no
other means of support.
If a woman is on social assistance, the department of social services or the
Department of Human Resources and Employment has a great deal of interest in who
else might be living in or staying at the house that this person is living in.
If the social services department decides, or even receives a report, Mr.
Speaker, or even receives a report, that a man may be living in this house, that
person is cut off social assistance pending an investigation. Mr. Speaker, this
has happened again and again and again in this Province. I have heard other
speakers mention this as a problem that has come to their attention, other
members of the House, and I am sure every member has heard some of the stories
from their constituents and others about Spouse-in-the-House cases.
The approach and the attitude of government in these cases is absolutely
abominable. It is discriminatory against women and the rules - even the rules
that we have here in this legislation - similar rules have been found to be
contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country, contrary to the
dignity of individuals and their rights under our Constitution, and yet this
government, this minister, this department, is presenting to this House of
Assembly rules that are similar to rules that have been found in other provinces
to be contrary to the Human Rights Codes and the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. I will be a little more particular in a few moments.
Let me give you a few examples, and the consequences to people who suffer
from an accusation. Sometimes it is by a neighbour, sometimes it is by someone
else on social assistance who has an axe to grid, sometimes it is by a stranger,
sometimes it is by a spouse, or a former spouse who is angry at the person in
receipt of income support for reasons having to do with a failed relationship or
failed marriage, or is jealous of the fact that this woman may have a new
relationship or a new friend and complains to the Department of Social Services
that this person is living with someone else. The immediate consequence, without
any investigation, is they cut them off. I will give you one example about the
woman with long-term diabetes. A week before Christmas, her brother came to
visit her for Christmas. Somebody reported this person as living with someone,
and this person was cut off a week before Christmas. It took a month to get
their social services reinstated because the investigation, of course, showed
that there was no relationship. There was no spouse in the house. It was an
accusation, a figment of someone's imagination. Yet, the department of social
services cut off this person who had been a diabetic and on social assistance
for many, many years because of illness and inability to support herself. This
is the kind of thing that goes on and on.
I can see I only have one minute left. I think I could go on for a number of
minutes and perhaps an hour or two on this issue alone, because the dignity of
people on social services and in receipt of income support is attacked
continuously by attitudes like that, by policies like that, and by the
legislation that, in this case is, in fact contrary, I believe, to the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. A workers' compensation definition of spouse requires
you to be living together with someone for three years before you are recognized
as a spouse. In the legislation before this House, it says that you are
cohabiting. You could be cohabiting for one day and be considered a spouse under
this legislation.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: If I may have a minute to just finish?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank members.
This is one rule that I want to put on record that we challenge directly. We
will be seeking amendments in Committee to have a better definition of spouse.
There are too many discriminatory aspects of this legislation that particularly
affect women. The Spouse-in-the-House rule, the shelter component for students,
and the attitude of the policies of cutting people off first and asking
questions later are things that have to change if we are going to respect the
dignity and the privacy of individuals who are forced to live on social
assistance in this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me pleasure to stand today and make a few comments with reference to
Bill 23. First of all, I want to compliment the minister and his staff at the
department for the long hours that I am sure they put into this, because I know
many of them over there in that department and they have special skills and
concerns for the people of this Province.
Mr. Speaker, to begin with, in 1998, the Department of Human Resources and
Employment broadened its mandate to incorporate employment support and labour
marketing programs in addition to income support. The reason we have this new
bill before us is that the old bill, I think, was outdated, in my mind anyway.
It goes back to 1977, and we have to reflect on new goals and objectives so that
we can strengthen the links between the employment services and the income
support services, Mr. Speaker.
MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).
MR. BUTLER: I say to the Member for Waterford Valley, I will come to his
comments shortly.
The legislation, Mr. Speaker, is about the framework and general directions
for programs and services. The proposed bill reflects the department's new
mandate and makes the link between income support and employment services. The
part with regard to the Social Services Appeal Board Act is proposed to be
repealed so that interested parties have one piece of legislation to deal with.
I believe that the present legislation that we have has served the Province
well, but due to the changing times and circumstances I believe that we have to
bring in new legislation to carry out the work in the best interests of the
people of this Province, Mr. Speaker.
In looking at some of the general statistics in relation to income support,
and I guess some of them are no doubt staggering figures, since 1997 the
caseload has declined from 36,660 to approximately 28,000 as of October, 2002.
The other staggering figure, Mr. Speaker, is when we look at the youth.
Approximately 51 per cent of the new entrants into the income support program
were twenty-nine years of age and under. However, those numbers have decreased,
as well, from 1997 from 22,000 down to 12,500. I am sure that the objective of
this government is to continue working through the department to see that those
numbers continue to decrease.
When it comes to the employment services part of the program, employment and
career services have included programs not only for the youth but persons with
disabilities and income support clients as well as offering a range of supports
to the general public.
Mr. Speaker, HRE, through employment and career services, have supported and
dealt with approximately 5,000 clients on a yearly basis. Not only that, but
they provide support to social assistance clients to help them find employment.
I know that it is an excellent program because I know of several cases in my own
district where young people who were dependent on income support; however,
through the employment services that have been offered, I know two young people
from the one family who have gone on and received their training and have been
employed in well-paid jobs since that time. I believe more of this has to be
done.
Also mentioned in this is with regard to - which I think is very important -
people with disabilities. I think they have spoken loud and clear during the
consultation period, that they should not be treated any differently than other
people and not segregated in any manner with the proposed income and support,
the new act. That is not there, Mr. Speaker. That will not take place.
The other item that I would like to touch on is with regard to the privacy
and confidentially, under
section 7. Clients will be pleased to know that the
new act provides for strong and active measures to protect personal information.
It also states, Mr. Speaker, that applicants, recipients, and persons acting
on their behalf, may review their personal information and request corrections
if there are errors made. I believe this is a good area that has been added to
the act because I have known people who, for various reasons, have had either
letters or phone calls from the department from time to time outlining
information to them of great concerns that they never knew was on their file.
Now, they will be able to go and review their file and correct those problems.
The act also provides a clear commitment to conduct a formal review process
every three years, in addition to the yearly budget process. I believe that this
holds government more accountable in a meaningful way.
Employment is the real key to reducing and eliminating poverty. This
government has made economic development and long-term sustainable jobs a
priority, Mr. Speaker.
I want to refer to my hon. colleague across the way, from Waterford Valley,
when he referenced, when he spoke last week, a report that he heard on CBC about
health and poverty being connected, and about having this - I think it was put
forward to the Romanow Report. Our goal is to see that poverty is reduced as
much as possible in this Province. We believe that the track that this
department and government is on in helping assist people in entering the labour
market is the real true way to follow through on. We all know, and I have heard
other members state, that child poverty existing in this Province and right
across the country is of great concern. One child in poverty is one too many.
Mr. Speaker, I also quote from the hon. Member for Waterford Valley when he
made the comment that the Canadian studies have shown that a family of four
requires $30,424 to be at the poverty line. I know this is a staggering figure
because when you break it down that works out to approximately $580 per week, or
even at the rate of $14.50 per hour. I think many jurisdictions are having
problems with where the line is drawn, what is classified as poverty and not.
Our youth, Mr. Speaker: As I stated earlier, about 26 per cent of all those
who received income support last year were in the age bracket of between
eighteen and twenty-nine.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned people with disabilities: I believe that we received
a strong message from persons with disabilities during the consultation process
and they do not want to be treated any differently. I have known cases, having
worked with various organizations in the district over the years and been
involved with the program of community living, been involved when the people are
moved from the institutions out to the group homes and working in conjunction
with the Canadian Paraplegic Association, and I have to say, I think the act
does exactly what those people want. They have to be recognized and every effort
made so that those people can enter the workforce just as importantly as anybody
else, Mr. Speaker.
Another area I would like to touch on is with regard to the overpayments and
the underpayments. Under this section, it says: The majority of overpayments are
created as a result of the income support programs' role while people are
waiting for employment insurance or Canada Pension, and they receive income
support and agree to repay later.
I believe this is very important because the clients have the right to
appeal. They can also go into the office and speak to the workers with regard to
this overpayment. I can assure you, I have had cases in my district where people
have received notifications that they owe a certain amount of money, which they
were not even aware of because they thought it had been taken care of. Now they
will be notified well in advance when any changes should take place.
Mr. Speaker, the Income Support Program has introduced a number of changes
over a recent period of time. Some of them would be the Newfoundland and
Labrador Child Benefit, which is provided in conjunction with the Canada Child
Tax Benefit; the extended drug card, and since 2000 clients can retain their
drug card coverage for six months after they leave the program for employment
reasons. Another one is child care. Rates provided for private child care, where
licenced child care is unavailable, increased to $325 for one child. There was
also an increase in the exemptions. Since 1999, families who are successful in
finding employment are now able to retain up to $150 per month. Mr. Speaker,
those are all very worthwhile changes to the program.
Mr. Speaker, to touch on the area with regard to the appeal board. I am very
pleased to say that I think it is a good idea where they will have a client or a
former client appointed to the appeal board. This was strongly supported by
participants during the consultation process because having been involved in the
appeal process for quite some time, I believe that a person who has been either
on the system, or still there, would really add a lot to the decision making at
that level.
Also, with regard to the appeal process, on page 24 of the act, I would also
like to note that - I think it is 42.(10), "Appeals heard by the board may
be conducted in person or by teleconference or video conference...". I have
to say I am glad the words in person' is still there in the act because I
believe there is nothing like going before the board face to face rather than
through the teleconference process.
So, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am in full support of this legislation.
We, as the government - and I have to go back to a comment that was made by the
hon. Member for St. John's South when he made his presentation last week. He
felt that if we were managing our resources properly, there would be more funds
available to help with the various social issues in the Province. I couldn't
help but agree with him more, Mr. Speaker. That is what this government is
doing, when you look at the areas with regards to White Rose and Voisey's Bay.
That is our goal, Mr. Speaker, to see that the benefit from those resources will
come back to the Province and help with all the various programs. I believe it
is very important to update and build new initiatives that will move us forward
in a very progressive way.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, I would like to conclude by, once again,
congratulating the minister and his staff on a wonderful job with this bill.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure to rise today and have a few comments on Bill 23,
An Act
Respecting The Provision Of Income And Employment Support To The People Of The
Province.
Mr. Speaker, I think everybody recognizes that the overhaul was badly needed
and we waited a long, long time to have an overhaul and to include extensive
consultation with all the stakeholders. Mr. Speaker, the stakeholders today are
a lot. They are people in the community who deal with people relying on income
support. It is the landlords and businesses within the community who give credit
to certain people. We have all kinds of businesses that deal with people
depending on income support.
Mr. Speaker, it took a long time to have the information that we need to
compile the new legislation, the new bill, dealing with this very important
topic, this very important issue. As I go, I will elaborate on some of the
fundamental issues dealing with this act and dealing with the people in the
Province who are depending on legislators to make a difference, to make a
change. Overhauling
an act like this means to change it, to make it better, to
make it better for the people of the Province who avail of assista