Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 24 April 2008 (46th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLVI No. 16)
2008-04-24
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April
24, 2008
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVI No. 16
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
Admit strangers.
Today the House of Assembly is very pleased to welcome athletes from the 2008
Special Olympics National Winter Games Team. These athletes are from the
Districts of Mount Pearl North, Mount Pearl South, St. John's North and
Gander. Present today are members of the gold medal winning floor hockey team,
and bronze medal winners in snowshoeing. They are accompanied by their coaches.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Today, members' statements will be from: the hon. the
Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for
the District of Mount Pearl South, by leave; the hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for the District of
The Isles of Notre Dame; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands;
and, the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East.
The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in the House today to congratulate the weather office staff in
Cartwright, Labrador, on receiving an International Certificate from the Global
Climate Observing Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland, in recognition of their
performance and excellence.
Mr. Speaker, this award is presented to weather stations around the world in
recognition of performance excellence. In the past three years, the Cartwright
weather office has provided 75 per cent of its climate reports, and has sent 50
per cent of all possible historical data to the GSN archive, and it is important
to note that they have been contributing to the GSN archive for the last forty
years.
Mr. Speaker, the Cartwright weather station is owned by NAV Canada and
contracted out by Nortech Holdings Limited. Its primary mandate is to observe
aviation weather conditions, but the Cartwright weather office also does
synoptic weather observations which are conducted at three- to six-hour
intervals specified by the World Meteorological Organization. These observations
are also used for global warming research.
The work that this office produces is certainly important, and it is a
testament to their efficiency, and they are internationally recognized for their
efforts.
Mr. Shawn Rickard, with Environment Canada, presented this award and pointed
out the significance of a weather station in a small community receiving such a
prestigious award. Recipients of this award included supervisor Robyn Holwell,
Sharon Martin, Rodney Hopkins, Andrea Pardy, and Phoebe Davis.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members in the House to join me in congratulating the
staff at the Cartwright weather office on their award for performance and
excellence, and being internationally recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Special Olympics in Newfoundland and Labrador is dedicated to
enriching the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians through sport. Their
organization currently boasts about 500 athletes in our Province.
Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to recognize the floor hockey team, the Gold
Medal Floor Hockey Team: Harry Fitzgerald, Travis Sceviour, Eddy Hynes, David
Wells, Janet Maher, Mark Peddle, Danny Russell, Nadia Brenton, Matthew Kelly,
Eddy Furlong, Robert McGrath, Andrew Ash, Andrew Hynes, Willie Winters and Dion
Cantwell. The Snowshoeing Team, Mr. Speaker: Sarah Brown, Johnny Philpott and
Justin Lahey.
The coaches are: Darren Reid, Eileen Reid, Onslow Brenton, Evan Ash, Roger
Head, Mary Holloway and Valerie Mueller.
Mr. Speaker, these athletes did us quite an honour to represent this
Province, and we are all proud of each and every one of them. I would like to
take this time to ask all members of this House to join with me in
congratulating these fine athletes, their coaches, and the entire Special
Olympics Team organization for a job well done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la
Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to deliver accolades to the Conne River Mi'kmaq
Performance Choir. Under the leadership of Director Brenda Jeddore, this
talented group of young individuals are reviving their heritage and sharing
their astounding voices around the globe.
Accompanied by the traditional caribou skin drum, they perform their native
last ten years, the Choir has performed at a number of prestigious ceremonies,
such as Tokyo and Hiroshima, where they sang at the Peace Monument as well as
the St. Elizabeth University for survivors of the A-bomb.
They have performed with the Newfoundland Symphony Youth Choir, the Mount
Pearl Show Choir and the Icelandic Choir. Their presence is regularly requested
at Aboriginal conferences and pow-wows across the nation. They also excel each
year at the Central Newfoundland Kiwanis Music Festival.
This Choir indeed serves the district proud, and they continue to demonstrate
excellence in musical performance and sustaining this Province's cultural
heritage. They have been invited to represent all First Nations peoples during
the opening ceremonies of the Vancouver 2010 Olympics.
To hear them first hand, attend the Grand Opening of the Arts and Exploration
Centre on May 9 in the Coast of Bays.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this House join me and my constituents
in commending the Conne River Band Council and the Conne River Mi'kmaq
Performance Choir for their commitment to excellence and revival of traditional
skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Isles of Notre
Dame.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to pay tribute to Dr. Mohamed Ravalia,
the Senior Medical Officer of Notre Dame Bay Memorial Health Centre in
Twillingate. A native of Zimbabwe, Dr. Ravalia has been a pillar of the medical
community in the Twillingate and New World Island region for the past
twenty-three years. His hard work and commitment is much appreciated and has
been highly recognized.
As an Associate Professor of Memorial's Faculty of Medicine, Dr. Ravalia
has been a five-time recipient of the Community Physician Teaching Award, as
selected by graduating medical students.
Recognition for his contributions to rural medicine was also bestowed upon
Dr. Ravalia when he was named the Newfoundland and Labrador 2004 Family
Physician of the Year.
Mr. Speaker, in October 2006, Dr. Ravalia was also awarded the prestigious
Donald I. Rice Award by the Canadian College of Family Physicians. This award
recognizes an outstanding Canadian family physician for his or her contributions
to teaching, vision and leadership in the field of medicine. During Dr. Ravalia's
two year tenure, he has had opportunity to present his perspectives at
chapter
meetings of family physicians across Canada.
Dr. Ravalia is widely respected for his leadership in Primary Health Care
reform, he is highly recognized as an authority on the challenges facing
international medical graduates when coming to practice in Canada, and he is
revered by medical students and residents training to be the doctors of
tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Twillingate and New World Island,
I ask all members of this House to extend a sincere thank you to Dr. Mohamed
Ravalia, for his twenty-three commitment to the residents of Twillingate and New
World Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of the Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this great House today to recognize a
very successful fisherman in the Bay of Islands.
Mr. Speaker, John Roy Hackett was born on Woods Island in 1932, and at the
age of twelve years old Mr. Hackett started his fishing career hauling lobster
pots in a row dory; however, tragedy struck this young man at the age of
eighteen, as within three years he lost his mother, father and sister.
Mr. Hackett became involved in the herring fishery at the age of seventeen,
and purchased his first seiner, The Silver Dolphin , in 1970. He also
co-owned a fish plant in Cox's Cove known as T & H Fisheries.
Mr. Hackett eventually sold his vessel and ownership of the fish plant now
being operated by Barry's Fisheries. He retired in 1991.
Mr. Hackett and his late wife Katherine are the parents of six girls and one
boy.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members in this great House to acknowledge and
show our appreciation to this great family man, businessperson and gentleman.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East.
SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, when one reflects on a life well lived,
there will certainly be periods of time that have to be considered as
highlights. For one resident of St. John's East, December of 2007 must surely
rank as one of these periods.
On December 7, Dr. Paul O'Neill was invested into the Order of Newfoundland
and Labrador at Government House. A mere eleven days later, on December 18, he
received the ACTRA Award of Excellence, which recognizes individuals who have
made a significant contribution to the arts.
Dr. O'Neill's career has been as varied as it has been long. He is most
familiar to most of us as an executive producer with CBC. His tenure there saw
the emergence of many of the talented performers who have become national icons
for our fine tradition of entertainment. His career as a writer is highlighted
by a history of our capital city entitled The Oldest City - The Story of St.
John's , a staple in any collection of Newfoundland literature.
Dr. O'Neill has made a profound mark on our Province in the realm of
theatre also, translating his love for the stage into creating, acting with and
directing a variety of theatre groups over the years.
Over forty organizations have benefited from his volunteer work, ranging from
the John Howard Society to the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council.
Mr. Speaker, a minute is not nearly enough time to pay tribute to this
remarkable son of our Province, but today I ask all members in this House to
join me in congratulating Dr. Paul O'Neill on his many contributions and
achievements.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this House today to provide honourable colleagues and the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador with an update on Cooke Aquaculture's operations on
the Province's South Coast.
At the present time, Cooke Aquaculture is employing 165 individuals full-time
at the Harbour Breton processing facility. This includes plant management staff
and persons working on harvesting vessels. In the coming days, an additional ten
to twelve seasonal positions will be made available at the plant. In addition to
that, Mr. Speaker, the company's farms in the region are employing 100 people
on a full-time basis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: The total direct employment with Cooke operations is now
approaching 300 people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, these employment levels are well above those
projected by Cooke Aquaculture prior to operations beginning in Newfoundland and
Labrador. This is tremendous news for the people of Harbour Breton and indeed
the people of the South Coast as a whole.
In October 2006, our government was pleased to announce, under the
Aquaculture Capital Equity Investment Program, a contribution of $10 million
toward Cooke Aquaculture's endeavours in our Province. We are certainly
delighted with the very positive impact that the company and indeed our
investment is already beginning to have on the Connaigre Peninsula.
All agreements between the provincial government and Cooke Aquaculture have
been finalized, and $7.5 million of our investment have been provided to the
company. The balance of the government's investment will be delivered upon the
completion of a hatchery by Cooke in this Province. To date, Cooke's
investment in our Province exceeds $40 million.
Mr. Speaker, our government continues to make strategic investments into our
aquaculture sector and the results have been tremendous. A key piece of our
investment has been the establishment of the Aquaculture Loan Guarantee Program,
a tripling of the funding for aquaculture in 2006 and over $14 million for
aquaculture in 2007.
Such investments have played a key role in the growth of the Newfoundland and
Labrador aquaculture sector. By the end of 2008, the production and the value of
the industry will have doubled from 2005.
Mr. Speaker, our government has shared with industry the vision that
Newfoundland and Labrador has the wherewithal to create a viable,
self-sustaining and self-financing aquaculture sector. When the industry needed
working capital and equity financing, we developed the appropriate programming
to provide it. Indeed, we have shared in the vision and we have certainly shared
in the risk.
We acknowledge that our industry still faces many challenges, but we are
encouraged by the success achieved to date. We anticipate further good news over
the coming months.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in celebrating the successes
of our aquaculture sector and in wishing Cooke Aquaculture and the people of the
South Coast all the best in this new industry as it continues to develop in the
future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Mr. Speaker, this is indeed good news. I could not be any more pleased for
any community in this Province than I am for the people in Harbour Breton today.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that this is a community that needs to be commended for
their own efforts, as well, because over the last number of years they have been
tackled by despair and many challenges in the fishing industry. When their plant
closed I think we will all have, forever enshrined in our memories, the scenes
of people leaving the community and moving on and the tremendous amount of
despair that existed there at the time.
So, this is indeed good news. What I say is, thank God, for people like Cooke
Aquaculture. Thank God for people who are prepared to invest in our Province,
provide us the ingenuity of being able to take an industry to the level that we
have seen the aquaculture industry take in this Province today. Mr. Speaker,
this shows their long-term commitment to an industry in this Province, and in
the region of the Connaigre Peninsula where it is very desperately needed right
now.
So, Mr. Speaker, what I would say is that we are very enthusiastic about
this, we are very supportive of it and we certainly want to commend all of those
involved, and also to recognize the tremendous amount of investment,
financially, that Cooke Aquaculture has made in our Province. Forty-million
dollars is a lot of money by any company to invest in a region of the Province
in any industry, and to point out that if you look at the aquaculture export
value last year in our Province, I think it was equivalent to their investment,
somewhere around $40 million as well.
We look forward to good things, good jobs, and a solid industry for the
people on the Connaigre Peninsula, and indeed the people of Harbour Breton.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement, and it is a
good news statement.
I, too, echo the thoughts of my colleague that this is wonderful for Harbour
Breton. I am delighted to see that a company such as Cooke would come in and
give this support to this industry - to the aquaculture sector, and I am really
glad to see the minister giving us an update.
I look forward to other updates from the minister with regard to other
aspects of our fishing industry. Things have been pretty silent lately, yet I
know that there are a lot of issues going on out there. I would look forward to
hearing, for example, just to choose one, to hear what the minister and the
ministry is doing, while still trying to get early pensions, early retirement
for plant workers who need that, so that younger people can come into the
fishing industry. There are two reasons for that issue, and that is the two. We
have plant workers who are tired and need early retirement, but we need to get
our younger people up and into the industry.
So I look forward to hearing what kind of investment the government is going
to make into that aspect of our fishing industry.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Human Resource, Labour and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues of
this government's commitment to advance the interests of persons with
disabilities and to support measures to increase their opportunity to
participate in the labour market.
I was honoured to recently accept a new role as Minister Responsible for
Persons with Disabilities. As outlined in the recent Speech from the Throne, our
government is committed to the establishment of a new division of disabilities.
Individuals living with a disability, and advocates for the disabled, believe
that this is long overdue. I look forward to leading this division as I see it
to be a critically important policy and program area for our government.
This year, staff will be hired to manage the new division. As well, in
consultation with the disabilities community, a comprehensive study will be
conducted to better understand the complex barriers that persons with
disabilities too often encounter in accessing public services, pursuing an
education and securing meaningful employment. Our government will work in
partnership with persons with disabilities, advocates and service delivery
agencies as we move forward with these community consultations. This work will
serve to identify new directions, and complement existing programs and services.
Mr. Speaker, as one example, last year we provided increased supports to
foster greater labour market participation for persons with disabilities.
Approximately $1 million was allocated through the Poverty Reduction Strategy to
help persons with disabilities get better connected to work. To this end,
government is supporting the Independent Living Resource Centre in the delivery
of a new internship program. In partnership with the supported employment
corporations throughout our Province, individuals with an intellectual
disability are being assisted as they make the transition from school to
employment. Government is supporting accommodation in the workplace through the
deployment of assistive devices and adaptation. There is also, Mr. Speaker, a
targeted wage subsidy program to encourage private sector employers to hire
post-secondary graduates with a disability.
This government believes in the promotion of inclusion and the establishment
of practices that enable everyone to participate in all that our society has to
offer. Persons with disabilities can make a significant contribution to the
collective wealth and prosperity of our Province. Our government will continue
to support and advance policies and programs which bring people in, encourage
greater self-reliance, and promote equality of opportunity. The new Division of
Disabilities is a firm step in the right direction.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an advanced copy of the minister's statement.
It is indeed rewarding and it is nice to hear what the plans are and to see
some flesh being put on the bones here, as it were. We heard about it in the
election run-up and we heard about it in the Throne Speech. Now we are getting
some concrete information and directions from the government and this minister
as to how he plans to actually implement the new division and what kind of
foundation we are going to end up with it.
I think it is a good start, particularly the study, and the fact that you are
going to consult because there are lots of informed people who have a lot to
offer in terms of what direction this needs to go in. There are lots of bits and
pieces of information and programs that are around government and exist. Of
course, they need to be brought together under the proper umbrella and have some
strategic direction. It is good to see that we are going to get a comprehensive
study that will give the minister some ability to focus on where he needs to go
in this particular area.
I would point out, as well; there are some serious issues that we are all
aware of, for example, the claw back. If someone currently goes out who is
receiving government funding from one source, and they get involved as a
disabled person in the industry, they suffer claw back provisions. That is a hot
and heavy item out there. Why do one if you lose on the other hand? That is a
very serious issue which I am sure that the study will delve into.
There is also the issue, of course, of the job coaches. Many of these people
have job coaches who go with them, and the issue of what these job coaches are
paid has certainly been one of the problems, I understand. You cannot get people
to go as job coaches in many areas at the minimum wage scale. So, no doubt, that
will be considered.
It is a good start. We look forward to seeing the study in due course and
seeing the direction that this new division will indeed take.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advanced copy.
I am aware of some of the work that his department, even before the special
division around disabilities was set up, how much his department under HRLE has
been doing for people with disabilities.
Certainly, in consultation with the Independent Living Resource Centre, the
minister could not be consulting with a better group. They are a group who are
people with disabilities. There are others, of course, in the Province and
nationally, that I am sure he will be consulting with as they do this study.
I am aware of the program that has been put in place with regard to
employment. I know that people at ILRC are very, very pleased with that program.
I encourage the minister to continue the good model of consultation that I think
he shows to his colleagues in the government. There are many issues that will
come out in the study that is going to be done, I am sure. One of them - and
again, I know the minister knows this, I am sure - a big barrier to people with
disabilities being employed is finding places of work that can accommodate
disabilities. I think that is going to be a major area that the government needs
to look at. It is a real need in this Province for us to look at employment
equity, and that means big investment when we look at it.
I look forward to the study as well, because I would like to see how the
government will deal with that kind of thing.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, our office has been contacted by teachers who have raised
concerns regarding fire safety in their schools. Teachers have pointed out to us
that some of the schools in question may be operating under fire standards from
the 1970s and 1980s.
I ask the minister: Now that you speak for the fire commissioner, can you
tell me if schools are expected to comply with today's fire standards, or are
they grandfathered in under previous codes and standards?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there are 285 schools in Newfoundland and
Labrador. Many of the schools were built, obviously, over the years, and were
built according to the fire safety codes of that time. Any new schools are built
according to today's fire safety codes, so there probably have been some
schools that have been grandfathered in, which has been the accepted practice.
If there are fire safety concerns, there is a process that is followed by the
schools to ensure that the schools are safe. There are daily inspections done,
and daily inspection reports that are submitted to the principal. Then these
daily reports are submitted to the school board on a monthly basis.
If there are any issues that are identified on a monthly basis to the school
boards, there is a time frame built in as to when they go out and they do the
work to address these issues.
Mr. Speaker, in saying that, we have also increased the budget for
maintenance so that the school boards have the latitude to do the work that
needs to be done.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I will leave it at that. Hopefully, there is a
supplementary question and I will be able to provide further information.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, can the minister table for us, in the House of
Assembly, a list of the schools in the Province that currently fall under
existing codes and standards that are in place today, and those that have
grandfathered in under codes that go back thirty years or more?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not have that information with me
to table at this time, but I will certainly make an effort to be able to table
that information here in the House.
I also want to speak about the importance of fire safety in our schools. We
follow the daily, the monthly, process, the boards do, and they go out and
through their maintenance budget they address fire safety issues.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, if there are any concerns that they feel
they need an independent opinion, the boards can also call on the fire
commissioner's office. I am certainly aware that there have been a number of
times, when they wanted that independent outside decision, that they call in the
fire commissioner's office and they get that information.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, this government has also - to show that we
are concerned about the safety of our students - invested in laboratory safety
equipment. We have had professional development for teachers in lab safety.
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.
MS BURKE: The other thing we did, Mr. Speaker, we invested to make sure
that the chemicals that have been left in our science labs for many, many, years
have also been disposed of appropriately.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe the fire commissioner could hold a public conference and verify what
the minister is telling us here today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the fire commissioner indicated that maintenance
and facility managers at health care facilities who were responsible for fire
and life safety issues did not know the codes relating to their facilities.
I ask the minister: In light of this information, can she tell me if the
maintenance people in the schools, or whatever people in these schools are
responsible for enforcing these codes, are any better prepared or any better
trained?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the school boards are responsible for the
operation of our schools and they have a process in place where they require
daily reports. Then they are submitted to the principal, monthly they go into
the board, and we have operations managers who look after these schools.
As I have indicated, at times when they felt they needed an independent
outside opinion, they have certainly contacted the fire commissioner's office.
I can think of one particular time when I was involved in some discussions and
the fire commissioner's office was contacted to go and do an inspection for a
school for us.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, there are also other layers of safety that
we have in place in our schools, but it is so important to realize that we do
these daily inspections because we are certainly concerned about the fire safety
in our schools.
The boards have managers who oversee this process. They are responsible and
they are accountable to ensure that this work is done, and is done in an
accountable manner.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It was a very simple question. I will ask the minister again. The fire
commissioner indicated that the people in hospitals who were responsible for
carrying this out were not familiar with the codes, nor properly trained.
I ask the minister: Can she give me the assurance that those people in the
schools responsible for this do have the training and know the codes under which
they are supposed to enforce those regulations?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I have outlined the responsibilities of the board
staff, and the process that they follow in order to make sure that any issues
are brought to the attention of the school boards.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, on an annual basis each school is inspected
by an outside agency that is contracted to go in and to check the systems that
are in that school, whether it is the fire equipment, the fire hose, the alarms,
the systems that are in place on an annual basis so it is not just
dependent upon the board staff. We also have an independent company go in to do
these evaluations and provide feedback to each and every school.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister tell me who the private company is, how often they do the
inspections, and are the reports submitted to the fire commissioner's office?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the work is done on an annual basis, and there are
reports generated from that work.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know the names of the companies offhand, but it is
certainly not private information; it certainly would be well known. If we are
paying a company to go out and do assessments, that is certainly public
information.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have a situation here where concerns are being raised about the standards
and codes that are being used in schools. We have the fire commissioner out
there saying the fire and life safety process in place for public inspections in
the Province is not working. In fact, I think his statement was that he was
shocked by his own results.
I ask the minister: Why is she so insistent on not allowing the fire
inspector to do his job and carry out the process of inspecting public buildings
in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I outlined the process that the school boards
have, who are accountable for the day-to-day operations of the school and the
maintenance of these schools.
What is important here, Mr. Speaker, is that the fire commissioner has the
right to inspect public buildings. The fire commissioner has the right to
inspect each and every school in this Province. Under no circumstances would I,
as Minister of Education, or the school boards, not allow the fire commissioner
or the fire department's ability to go in and do the assessments that they
deem are required.
Mr. Speaker, they have the right to do it. We have not eliminated that right.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Environment.
Minister, in February of this year, your department advised municipalities
and communities who use incinerators that they would have to be closed down by
December 31. I recall reading as well, I believe, an
article in the Telegram
whereby you gave some information to that effect as well, and what was intended
to originally be a closure of 2010 was ramped up to December of this year, 2008.
I was just wondering if there will be any exemptions permitted to this order,
to any communities in the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, as for our Waste Management Strategy that was
announced in May, 2007 of last year, one of the requirements is that teepee
incinerators no longer operate after December 31, 2008. There were approximately
fifty teepee incinerators in operation. That number is now down to twenty-five,
and we have committed to having a technical team in place to meet with all of
these individual towns so that alternatives can be explored.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you.
Maybe the minister could be more explicit. The question was: Are there going
to be any exemptions? Because we know the order is out there, we know that
communities are asking.
My question is: Will there be exemptions, and if there will be exemptions,
have you figured out yet what is necessary to get an exemption?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, our goal in the Department of Environment and
Conservation, and in co-operation with my colleague, the Minister of Municipal
Affairs, is to have these teepee incinerators eliminated by December 31, 2008.
These are not good for the environment. They are burned at very low
temperatures, and what comes out of these is certainly not good for people of
this Province, in terms of dioxins and furans. We have committed to working with
these towns to find alternatives, and our goal is to have all of them eliminated
by December 31, 2008.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I think my question is fairly clear. We all
understand the issue of the toxins and why we need the teepees closed.
My question is fairly straightforward: Are you prepared to grant any
communities in this Province, who currently have teepees, an exemption? Have you
made that decision yet, that exemptions may be granted?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the theme of recycling, if the
hon. member is going to continue to recycle his question, I will continue to
recycle the answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, our goal is to have teepee incinerators
eliminated by December 31, 2008. We are down to twenty-five. We have made
significant progress. Our goal, as I said, is to have zero by December 31, 2008.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Sometimes when the question is simple, but the person does not understand it
and they do not want to give an answer, or maybe -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. PARSONS: Maybe I will put it to the minister this way -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. PARSONS: I asked my questions of the Minister of Environment and we
are not getting an answer. Well, minister, are you aware, as the Minister of the
Department of the Environment, that the Department of Municipal Affairs has
already, regardless of what you intend to do, your colleague, the Minister of
Municipal Affairs, has already given some communities an exemption, or is
prepared to give an exemption. Are you aware of that? Are you aware of that,
minister?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, the regulations around the elimination of teepee
incinerators falls within the Department of Environment and Conservation and
there have been no exemptions from our department.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Exactly my point. I am trying to show here that one minister of this
government does not know what the other minister is doing. One is in charge of
the environment; one is in charge of waste management.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of an e-mail sent by one of the
government members, a backbencher, to a community, Franois, which says that
that community will get an exemption. It came from the office of the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
Now which is it, minister? Is there going be exemptions under Environment who
made the order? Does the Minister of Municipal Affairs know what he is doing?
Can you tell us what is going on, because the communities subject to your order
certainly do not know? Maybe you can clarify.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, for the fifth time, there will be no exemptions.
We will continue -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: We are eight months away from this elimination date. We are
very committed to working with these communities, both in co-operation with the
Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Government Services, and my
department. We are very committed to working with these groups to find
alternatives.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The point I was trying to make here with these questions is that it is quite
obvious that neither the minister - the Minister of Environment might know what
she is doing but the Minister of Municipal Affairs, he had a meeting, Mr.
Speaker. A meeting was held by the Minister of Municipal Affairs with the Member
for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune on April 8, this year, after the Minister of
Environment gave the directions - after she said in The Telegram there
will be no exemptions and that Minister of Municipal Affairs told the Member for
Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune that there would be an exemption, and that was passed
on to the community of Franois.
The question is: When will you people make up your mind what you are going to
do about exemptions, and will you communicate that to other communities in this
Province? When will you tell the communities what you are going to do?
SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My mind is very made up. I cannot make it any clearer than I have been making
it. What I will ask the hon. member opposite: Is he proposing that we continue
to burn these potentially chemical toxins into the environment? If that is what
he is proposing for his area, I think he should talk to his town.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is easy to tell when you strike a knot. They can give these fluff answers
but when they get down to some details -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. PARSONS: I say to the minister again: Does the Member for Fortune
Bay-Cape la Hune not know what she is talking about when she makes a statement
to the Mayor of Franois that you will be getting an exemption, in writing? And
I have had that confirmed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs on April 8.
Now, minister, all I am asking you is: When will the communities in this
Province, who received your order in February, when will they know and what must
they do to get an exemption, because somebody else, other than you, is handing
out exemptions? Should they deal with you or Municipal Affairs?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, as Minister Responsible for Environment and
Conservation and as minister responsible for this particular regulation, I am
the only one who could grant exemptions, if I were to do so.
I did say in The Telegram that we will work with these communities. We
are committed to working with these communities. We want to find a solution. We
want to eliminate teepee incinerators. They are not good for the environment.
They emit dioxins and furans which are not good for people, wildlife and so on
and so forth. That is our goal and we are sticking to it, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I heard that one before: That's my story and I am sticking to it.
My next question will be for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, I
do not mind tabling that by the way, confirming where it came from and who it
went to. That is not a problem; that will be done. I can hand it to you
personally or table it, whatever you prefer.
My question for the minister is, in the community of Ramea for example, about
a year, a year-and-a-half ago, two years, they put in a new tepee incinerator
which cost over $200,000, that this government paid 100 per cent for. All I am
trying to determine here, on behalf of that community - because up to thirty
minutes ago Mayor Lloyd Rossiter did not know anything about it.
Can there be an exemption for places like Ramea? We just spent over $200,000.
You are on record here as saying that certain communities will get an exemption.
What should (inaudible)?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, the health concerns of the people in Ramea are
no different than the health concerns of the people (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, while a significant amount of money may have
been spent into putting this incinerator in, the environmental cost of not
eliminating it is much more, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is quite obvious that they do not want the Minister of Municipal Affairs
to get on his feet. I don't know, maybe because he gives some answers - maybe
- but I will ask him another one.
Minister, waste management, I take it, is in your area, even though it is all
interlinked to environmental concerns and so on. You recently announced the
appointment of three more persons to the Western Regional Waste Management
Committee.
Port aux Basques, which is the single largest community in the Burgeo-LaPoile
area, certainly from south of South Branch, which is the Member for Stephenville
East, all of Codroy Valley, right on down to Grey River, there is only one
community representative of that. The Town of Port aux Basques, which is the
biggest community in the district, wants to be involved in waste management and
wants to co-operate with government.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to pose his question.
MR. PARSONS: They have been denied a seat on the board.
I ask the minister: With a community of such size and geographic
significance, why would you refuse and not allow them to have a seat on a board
when they want to be co-operative with you?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker
The Opposition House Leader is right; I did release a news release a week
ago, putting a full complement in the Western Waste Management region.
Mr. Speaker, what the hon. gentleman is saying can be said by a significant
number of other municipalities that are not represented on that area.
What I tried to do is try to get equal representation from small, medium and
large municipalities, so that the input is even throughout, where the issues
from the larger communities are identified, the issues from the medium-sized
communities are identified, and the issues from the smaller communities are
identified.
Mr. Speaker, every time I announce a management team in waste management, I
have the same set of arguments: Why?
They are valid arguments, and I do not disagree with the member across the
way.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to complete his answer.
MR. DENINE: I do not disagree with the hon. member that the Mayor of Port
aux Basques is looking for it. They want to be part of it. I welcome them to be
part of it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, I have no problems with how many communities you have on the Waste
Management Strategy. In fact, I would think the wise and prudent thing would be,
the more bodies and heads we have involved, the more co-operation and the better
we get it done.
My question of the minister is: Are you saying now, Minister - because it is
a ten board seat, or seat board - is there any problem, Minister? Are you
prepared to commit that the Town of Port aux Basques can have a representative
on that board, or the Town of Stephenville who has also been left out, by the
way?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared today to give that commitment.
What this committee is going to do, this committee is going to do the
groundwork to make sure that the process is in place that they come to a host
site that everyone can put their garbage in. Now, this is not going to be a
dump; it is going to be an engineered landfill.
At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, when this committee is done, there will
be an elected board and that member can run for election.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
You talk about one hand knowing what the other hand is doing.
After the Minister of Environment announced the closure of the teepees for
December 31, the Minister of Municipal Affairs went out to the West Coast and
told these communities: We are going to give you a consultant now.
Now, there is a meeting being held tonight in Burnt Islands by the West Coast
Management Committee dealing with this consultant and how we are going to have
input into it and get it up and running. Guess who is going to be the lead for
that consultant study? Guess who they have asked? The Town of Port aux Basques.
Now, Minister, don't you see an inconsistency where you want the Town of
Port aux Basques to lead your consultant to deal with waste management issues
but you do not want the Town of Port aux Basques sitting on the board? Isn't
there something foolish about that?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR. DENINE: I am not sure what the question is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: All I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman would
ask me a question, I will answer it.
I am delighted that it is in Port aux Basques. I am delighted that they are
over there having their consultations, because that is what the process is all
about: listening to everyone who is going to be involved, to bring their ideas
back so the consultant would have a better vision of what to recommend.
I applaud Port aux Basques for hosting that meeting, and that is done through
the Western Regional Waste Management Committee, not through my office.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
The federal government transferred $82.3 million for municipalities in this
Province, money carved off the rebate on gas tax. Out of that, the provincial
government carved off $22 million for themselves to spend within the department
on waste management.
I ask the minister: How much of that money has now been spent to date, and
what has it been spent on?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give you the exact amount, but if the
member wants it I can give it to her. I do not know the exact number but there
is work being done on the Avalon area with retrofit of Robin Hood Bay. There is
a new site in the Central area that is being worked on now. There is money
allocated to the Western Waste Management Committee to get their consultations
up and running. This is all part of the whole picture.
I do not know the exact number. If she wants it, I can get it for her.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will wait for the information to
be tabled.
The mega-dump concept that the minister is promoting in his department, we
know, will have a burden on certain municipalities in the Province. We know, Mr.
Speaker, that there will be extra cost associated with the transport of garbage
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
MS JONES: - and tipping fees that will have to be charged at dump sites.
I ask the minister: In this time of rising gas prices, how much will it cost
towns, extra - and let's take the Town of St. Lawrence, for example, who is
expected to transport their garbage about 400 kilometres to Robin Hood Bay -
what will the extra cost be to the residents in that community?
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct one thing. We are not putting
them into any more when these three host sites dumps. We are putting
them into an engineered landfill, which is totally different. The idea of a
dump, let's get that out of our mind.
Mr. Speaker, the idea of how much it is going to cost has not been determined
yet.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
I ask members for their co-operation.
The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, the area in which she is looking at, the Burin
Peninsula, they have a Regional Management Committee down there. They are
looking at the waste management in that area. When they get their consulting
done, then we will know.
Right now, I cannot give you an answer on how much it is going to cost, but
what is going to happen is that the general principle is that the first 100
kilometres will be the responsibility of the municipality.
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Environment and Conservation removed
all doubt and announced that the government wants to cut the proposed Mealy
Mountains National Park by 50 per cent. This proposal would leave some important
watersheds and wildlife habitats unprotected. It includes taking the Eagle River
section out of the national park and instead creating a provincial park. This
decision is shameful considering that this Province only has approximately 1.5
per cent of its eco regions protected, well below the recommended 12 per cent
standard.
Given this Province's poor record in preserving its provincial parks and
poorer record in setting up wilderness areas, I ask the minister: Why is
government proposing to take the Eagle River watershed out of the national park
where it will have maximum protection and management by Parks Canada? It makes
no sense.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this government is very committed to having a national park in
the Mealy Mountains area.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, we are also very committed to ensuring that the
conservation targets set out in the Park Purpose Statement are also met.
Mr. Speaker, the Steering Committee did meet last month. It is back up and
running, it is on track, and it is meeting again next month as well. Also, there
have been some discussions put forward. We are just one player at that Steering
Committee. We did put items forward for discussion, Mr. Speaker, because it is
very important
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
I ask members for their cooperation. The Chair has recognized the hon. the
Minister of Environment and Conservation.
MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that there be a balance
between ecological integrity and the potential future development for the people
of Labrador, and any decisions that are made have to be done in a sustainable
manner. We put items on the table for discussion but at the end of the day the
Steering Committee will put a proposal forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This government also says it is committed to community consultation. Well,
the community consultation and participation which is very, very important, that
consultation process has said that they, too, are very concerned about the eco
regions, and the balance for them is a national park.
The people of Labrador have made their wishes clear in surveys and public
statements. They want the national park that would have the original boundaries
as defined in a Parks Canada Feasibility Study in 2005. Why is this government
ignoring the wishes of Labrador communities that have said they want the park
with the boundaries as proposed to ensure that the sensitive areas you are
concerned about will get maximum protection?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is very important that there be a balance between
the ecological integrity and the items of ecological importance and the
potential for future development for the people of Labrador, and decisions like
these have to be made so that they are made in a sustainable manner. We are very
committed to having a park in the Mealy Mountain area. We are very committed to
protecting the Eagle River. Mr. Speaker, because we are interested in protecting
areas within our Province, we propose having the Eagle River - or what we put on
the table for discussion is that the Eagle River be protected provincially,
because we are, as the member may know, proposing the waterway park for Main
River. It would be really wonderful, because we have one on the Island, to have
one in Labrador as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to raise a point of order, please. It will be under Standing
Order 26, in relation to Oral Questions.
Last week, on Thursday, April 17, and Hansard will demonstrate, Mr. Speaker,
that the Opposition House Leader asked myself, as the Minister of Justice, a
number of questions in relation to Her Majesty's Penitentiary. On that date he
stated: "According to the information we have, Mr. Speaker, approximately
70 per cent of the inmate population at the penitentiary at this time have a
pre-diagnosed mental illness and drug addictions." He then referred to
current policy at Her Majesty's Penitentiary. As Minister of Justice, I said
to him, show me the documents or show me the facts. He said he would certainly
provide with the info.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at the questions that were asked, and if you look at
Standing Order 26, then for your own reference, and I am not going to go through
this, Mr. Speaker, but if you look at Beauchesne, pages 120-122, it outlines
what can and cannot be done in Oral Questions.
The Opposition House Leader not only breached the standing order, in terms of
the comments made, the
preambles, the length of the
preamble. The commentary
that we have seen here today, one would expect that these members, having been
here for a while, would at least know basic principles of parliamentary
procedure.
What then takes place, Mr. Speaker, is that on Tuesday, April 22 - the prison
review was announced on April 18. There were no questions from the Opposition
House Leader of me on April 22. Then he seeks to table documents, and he states:
Nine different reports from different agencies, Correctional Services in Canada,
and in this Province, from which I collected info. He provided those documents
to me. Mr. Speaker, he would not accept them as tabling. Now, it just happens
that they are printed. Remember, the initial comments were on April 17. It just
happens they are printed on April 18 and April 22. Now I am not imputing any
improper motive there, but it is suspicious, to say the least.
Then what happens, Mr. Speaker, I go to the documents. There are no documents
that relate to this Province. They relate to Correctional Services of Canada,
2001 discussion paper; cbc.ca; 2002, US Bureau of Justice statistics; 1991, Canadian
Journal of Criminology .
What happens, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you, is whether intentionally
or inadvertently, it was an attempt to mislead this hon. House by putting this
kind of documents - by referring to them and then not having them to back it up.
Under the Oral Questions, Mr. Speaker, if I could ask you to look at page 20,
of the Standing Order 26, "In putting any oral question, no argument or
opinion is to be offered nor any facts stated except so far as may be necessary
to explain the same." Certainly, as much as that rule is breached on a
daily basis by the Opposition House Leaders, I do not want to pick on them too
much. There are only a couple of them over there, but, Mr. Speaker, there have
to be rules and you cannot have the Opposition House Leader misleading this hon.
House and impugning improper statements.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to that point of order?
MR. PARSONS: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker
MR. KENNEDY: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. PARSONS: Maybe the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker - first of all, I
did not say point of order. I said to the point of order, which I believe it is
my right in this House to speak to a point of order if the Chair permits. The
Chair has permitted, I understand, me to speak to the point of order.
First of all, the comment I would make is, I have been in this House now nine
years or so. That is the first time in the nine years I have been here that
anyone has ever accused me or dared accuse me of trying to mislead this House or
anyone in it. Now maybe we had Inquiries 101 last week, and I guess this is
legislative protocol and procedures 101, complements of the Minister of Justice.
Mr. Speaker, I asked questions last week in this House based upon information
that was provided to me by staffers in our office, researchers. In response to
the question, the Minister of Justice said to me: Where are you getting your
facts? I went back to the staffer who had given me the information in the office
and said: What information did you rely upon in order to help me compile the
questions that I just put to the Minister of Justice today?
The information that I put in a purple folder and stood here and transported
to the Minister of Justice a few days ago was that information which that
staffer printed off and gave to me so that I could present it here in the House
and give it to the minister. Now, to take that and stretch it to say that I
deliberately, maliciously tried to mislead this House, that is overstepping it.
That is overstepping it. Now, if I had some improper information, I have no
problem with that. It would not be the first time in my life that I said
something that I relied on improper information. I would be the first to stand
up and say that, because I am not perfect. But there is a big -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer, his response.
MR. PARSONS: Yes, and it is very important, Mr. Speaker, that I be
allowed to conclude.
Someone here has challenged and said that I deliberately misled this House,
and that is a very serious allegation. If anyone has been innocently misled,
that is one thing, but to stand up here and say that I deliberately misled
anyone, based upon information that I had, is absolutely improper.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has entertained enough -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask members for their co-operation. The Chair has heard the response, the
point of order as being raised by the Minister of Justice and the response by
the Opposition House Leader.
I did not hear the Minister of Justice say anybody deliberately misled
anybody here. If Hansard will show that, or if the broadcasting will show it,
then I will respond to that after.
Before the Forty-Sixth General Assembly sat, the Speaker met with the
Government House Leader and he met with the Opposition House Leader and the
Leader of the third party. It was agreed at that time that we would use
forty-five seconds as a guideline to ask questions and give answers.
The point raised by the hon. Minister of Justice, I guess it is a fine point
where it says, "In putting any oral question, no argument or opinion is to
be offered nor any facts stated except so far as may be necessary to explain the
same." That is a pretty broad statement, I say to members.
There is certainly no point of order. It is a point of information that is
put forward. If hon. members feel that forty-five seconds is to long to ask a
question or to answer a question, then I ask you to speak with me and we will
have it changed.
Presenting Reports by Standing or Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to call for second reading debate, Order 7,
An Act To Amend The
Pension Benefits Act, Bill 21, standing in the name of the Minister of
Government Services.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 21,
An Act To Amend The
Pension Benefits Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits
Act." (Bill 21)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to get up in this hon. House today
in regards to speaking to this Bill 21 which will amend the Pension Benefits
Act.
Before I get into the aspects of the bill, one of the most important aspects
of a person's life as they age is their benefit of having a pension that they
would have when they retire to get older and enjoy life to the fullest once
their work life is over. So, it is very, very important, as the minister
responsible for my department, to make sure that we protect the employees in
regard to that pension plan, in its fullest, all the way along until their
eventual retirement. That is what this amendment does, Mr. Speaker. It ensures
the protection of pension plans for workers all over this Province.
There is a need to improve this protection by amending the Pension Benefits
Act, and to ensure - and what this amendment does is ensure that funding of
deficits in pension plan windups is fully funded; because, if it is not fully
funded thus it decreases the benefits to the employee. The benefits that they
expected in the front end when they started paying into the pension plan would
not be there at the end, once they retire.
Also, you know, the company may very well want to wind up a pension even
though the company is not going out of business, or it would wind up a pension
plan when it is going out of business. So, this protects this in all aspects;
however, under the current legislation, when a plan winds up before the end of a
five year period, the employer is only required to fund the amount owing up to
the windup date. So, in addition, any new deficits identified at the windup date
are not required to be funded.
This would mean that plan members would have their benefits reduced. It could
be reduced by a minimal amount, but it certainly could be reduced by a severe
amount. Certainly, that would not be in the best interest of the employee; nor
would it be what they would expect at the end of their pension and their work
life. Certainly, this is what this is.
Under the Department of Government Services now, and under the Pension
Benefits Act, it requires that a pension plan have an actuarial validation
report completed at least every three years to assess the funding position of
the plan, on both a going concern as well as a solvency basis.
If there is a solvency deficit, the pension plan sponsor is now required to
fund that deficit over a five year period. That is what this amendment will do,
thus certainly ensuring that the employee is certainly protected over the
lifetime of the pension and certainly at the end.
The other thing that I might say, too, Mr. Speaker, in regard to this pension
plan, is that most other provinces across the nation have similar legislation,
and changing our legislation will ensure pension plans in this Province for
employees whose company operates in more than one jurisdiction will receive the
same level of funding on plan windup as those in jurisdictions that already have
similar requirements.
This amendment, I see as a positive step that provides greater protection for
employees when there is a deficit on windup of a pension plan.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will finish up and I welcome any comments by my
hon. members across the House, in the Opposition, and I will try to answer any
questions that they may have.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words.
This, of course, is a Pension Benefits Act and no doubt it is a money bill, I
guess. We are talking about somebody's money, whether it is this provincial
government's money or the pensioners' money
MS JONES: The taxpayers.
MR. PARSONS: - the taxpayers' money, and people who must hold money in
a fund to make sure that once the pension plan, of course, or the person who
hopes to draw their pension, that there is money in the fund to look after them.
Because it is a money bill, of course, it gives members an opportunity,
pretty wide latitude of money issues and financial issues, to discuss a number
AN HON. MEMBER: That is stretching it.
MR. PARSONS: Members opposite say it is a stretch. I guess you might have
to wait until you hear what I have to say, unless you would like to predetermine
what I have to say now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
MR. PARSONS: I was pretty good yesterday at predicting what the Minister
of Finance was going to say in response to my private member's motion. I was
spot on, but I do not know if the members over there have ESP or mind reading
abilities or what, but to suggest that this member should not talk because they
know what I am going to say already and it is not related, I think that is a bit
of a stretch.
I am sure the Speaker will do that, if it is not related, or maybe the
Speaker could give us some direction. Maybe it is not a money bill. Maybe it is
a straight administrative bill that deals with pensions, but I would think that
it talks about pensions, private pensions, and it is money. Money is in a
pension fund, and this government is going to pass a law which orders certain
people
MR. O'BRIEN: (Inaudible).
MR. PARSONS: It may be private money, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of
Government Services says it is a private pension fund. Maybe so, but this
government is going to pass a law that dictates a certain amendment to the
Pension Benefits Act of 1997.
Regardless of who owns the money, or whose pension fund it is, this
government is passing a piece of legislation that is dealing with, in this
particular case, what money must be left in a pot to ensure people that there is
solvency there, or enough money left there to pay the people who paid the
pension in.
I think that is a money bill. You can extrapolate that any way you want; I
think that is a money bill. Anybody in this Province who does not believe that a
pension deals with a money bill, I do not know what it deals with. It talks
about people's livelihoods and their ability to look after themselves and have
some dollars, money, in their pocket when they retire.
Now, hopefully we have established the basis of it being a money bill, Mr.
Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: Let's see what you have to say.
MR. PARSONS: Well, I was going to talk about other money issues. For
example, there are lots of money issues that people want to make sure that they
know about and they are properly informed about. If I get shut down on this
opportunity, I am sure there will be another opportunity that I will get to
discuss it on, but it leads with some of the money issues.
I raised questions today of the Minister of Environment and the Minister of
Municipal Affairs. That is a very serious money issue. We have one issue - and
it is serious environmental issue, by the way, very serious. Anybody who does
not take the teepee situation in this Province, where we dispose of our waste,
as a serious issue, we are seriously missing the boat. I have no problems
whatsoever with the Minister of Environment saying that we have to do something
about the teepee incinerators, and I think every person in this Province would
agree with that. We need to do something about it. The question is how we get
there.
My question today, because it talks about money, somebody in this government
has directed that a bunch of people, a bunch of communities in this Province,
some municipalities, some local service districts, have to shut down their
teepees come December 1. Now, the question I was asked, I went out during our
Easter break and I visited every community in my district and held meetings with
the community leaders, and every single one, bar none, asked me: Mr. Parsons,
how are we going to deal with that order, because it impacts us in our pocket
book? If we close the teepee on December 31, what are we going to do with our
garbage?
Now that was the question and I did not have an answer for them, quite
frankly. I did not have an answer. The Mayor of Ramea provided me with the
letter from the Department of Environment dated the eighteenth. Very
straightforward, I think it was only like a two or three sentence letter that
said, just putting you on notice.
It did not come directly from the minister. It came from some official in the
minister's office and said, just to give you notice and heads-up that as of
December 31 this year, 2008, you are shutting down your incinerator.
That was it, pretty straightforward. It didn't say anything about what your
options might be. It didn't say, well, contact anybody in Municipal Affairs
and figure out what you are going to do with your waste, or we are going to do
this or we are going to do that. So it was a logical question for these people
to ask: What are we going to do with our waste?
I took it upon myself to do some inquiring. What are they going to do with
the waste? The councils on the West Coast, I believe Mr. Fenwick in the Port au
Port area I forget the name of the community right now that he is the mayor
of. It is a local service district and he is the head, I understand, of the
council there. He spearheaded a meeting. I know the Mayor of Burgeo was there, a
whole bunch of councillors from the West Coast, and mayors, and they did not
have any answers. Between them, none of them had any answers and they needed
some answers.
I do believe Mr. Gilbert Smart, who is the Chair of the Western Region Waste
Management Committee, met with them and said, yes, we have a serious issue here.
We know the order is out there, but we cannot tell you right now what to do with
your waste after December 31.
That raised the question: Where is the money going to come from? What money
is involved in order for these communities - what are the going to do with their
waste, and what is it going to cost?
That is how this question started. The Mayor of Ramea, for example, asked me:
Do you think it is possible that we might get an exemption? Because it was only
two years ago, he said, that our incinerator was no longer usable, functional.
We went to government and, in conjunction with government, they decided that the
only option, or the best option, we had a couple of years ago was to build a new
one.
They were working on a Waste Management Strategy for the western portion of
the Province, and all of the Province indeed, and hopefully some option would
come out of it, but in the meantime let's put your new incinerator in place.
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador gave the community of Ramea 100
per cent financing to do that. It was a need, it had to be dealt with, and the
government came to the fore and dealt with it. Now, nobody disagrees with that.
Sometimes there are not readily available solutions; you have to do those
things.
Here they were saying a simple question - we just made this massive
investment, the government did, of $200,000. We don't have an option as to how
we are going to truck our garbage off in Ramea. We don't know the cost of it,
so is it possible to get an exemption?
Now that is a pretty straightforward question, but nobody was saying if an
exemption was possible. In fact, when I read the news media - and I have a copy
here of the February 19
article where the minister was interviewed by the
Telegram . These closures were to take place in 2010, so the question of the
Telegram was - because they had gotten some records through freedom of
information - they said: Based on the briefing notes we got through FOI, it
appears that there might be some possibility of isolated communities getting an
exemption.
The minister quite adamantly said "Not so, says Johnson." is
the quote. Her quote is, "There have been no delays. Incinerators have
closed as scheduled," she said, indicating that the remaining incinerators
"will close the end of this year."
That was February. The order went out in February. She told the media in
February that they were going to close. Yet, the questions remain: what to do,
and were there exemptions?
That is why I ask the Minister of Environment today, who issued that order:
Can anybody get an exemption?
The minister says no, no exemptions. It is on the record, it is done. It
closed December 31.
That didn't square with some other information I had, because there is
another community in this Province called Franois, on the South Coast, which
we had been told had been given an exemption.
I said no, there has to be some confusion here. The minister says it is not
closing, the minister made the order, so you are not going to have your
incinerator in Franois after December 31. They are not going to make
exceptions for Franois.
That is a pretty straightforward question. The minister again today
confirmed: no exemptions, that is it, not on, tepees are closing.
My question, then, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, was: If that is the
case, why does the person who heads up the local service district, or used to
head it up, in Franois, why do they think they are getting an exemption?
Lo and behold, there is an e-mail dated April 8, this year, where the MHA for
Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, e-mailed this person in Franois and said: I met with
the minister this morning - uses his name, Minister Denine - you will be getting
an exemption.
I am not saying there is anything wrong with the exemption, and I am not
saying that government should not give an exemption to some other communities.
My question was directed to: Did you, Minister Denine, do this? Does the MHA for
that district have good, solid information that she conveyed on to those people
in Franois?
It is one or the other. Either the MHA does not know what she is talking
about or she misunderstood what the minister told her, which means she
automatically or inadvertently misled the people of Franois. It is either that
or else the minister did tell her, in which case then the question is raised:
Well, what is the Minister of Municipal Affairs doing, giving an exemption?
Because there is only one minister, as I understand, who can give the exemption
from shutting down the incinerator, and that is the Minister of Environment, and
she confirmed that there are no exemptions.
It is not rocket science. My questions were directed to: We know the order is
there. We know this community has been told that. Does one minister talk to the
other minister?
I don't say that facetiously. We have had indications of ministers who have
not read their briefing notes until months after getting into a department. We
have had ministers who have said: We don't answer questions because we weren't
asked.
Don't get upset with people because we asked simple questions that we
cannot get answers to. There are lots of precedents in the last few weeks
even as to why people question the information, or lack thereof sometimes,
and guidance from this government.
The government is there to pat themselves on the back, as they should when
you do something good, and I am all for that. If you do something good, pat
yourself on the back, but all we are asking here - and the members opposite
today, during Question Period, they got upset because we asked a question, as if
we are trying to embarrass someone. Here we are, we are asking for information.
If we write a letter to some ministers, we get told, go to Access To
Information, and we cannot get it. Yet, we get in the House here and we ask a
question, can we get information? We get half answers. We get all kinds of
blarney and we do not get any straightforward; a simple thing.
I asked the Minister of Environment today, four times, do you intend to give
any exemptions? Now, to me, there are only three possible answers to that. There
are three possible answers, yes, no, or I do not know. That is pretty simple.
But no, sir, we did not get a straightforward answer; did not get a
straightforward answer.
So I say to the ministers, respectfully, all we are asking is for a straight
answer. Get your act together, and if you are going to give an exemption, or you
would consider giving an exemption, then there is another piece of information
that we would like to have. For example, what is the criteria going to be for an
exemption? I can understand if the minister says, we are going to give an
exemption to Franois, we are going to give an exemption to Grey River, because
you people are isolated communities. I have no problem with that. That is a
legitimate isolation issue, but then the question arises, what about other
communities? How do you define isolation?
For example, I have a community in Rose Blanche. Does Rose Blanche qualify?
Does Fogo Island qualify? I mean, the community of Fogo Island is connected by a
ferry, but a fairly large number of communities on that island, Fogo Island, are
they going to get an exemption? Instead of being upfront and saying: boys, we
have not figured it out. We get all kinds of diversionary, evasive answers.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs would not even come to his feet and confirm
whether that was a true statement or not, that he made to the MHA. There would
not be half the trouble if you just openly gave the answers, and that is all we
were asking for. It is like the question I asked, again a money question about
the cost of a consultant. The order was made by Environment to close down. After
that order got made, Municipal Affairs steps in and says we are going to appoint
a consultant to figure out the options.
Now, I do not know about anybody else's thinking, but usually if you are
going to give an order you think of the ramifications it might have before you
give it. That is part of the planning process. Who are we impacting by this
order? Have we consulted with them? Do we need to consult with them? What are
the pros and what are cons and the directive that we are going to give? That is
usually, I understand, a prudent approach to governance. But, what do we have
here? We had the order out, we had the minister out saying it stands, there are
no exceptions and then we get the Minister of Municipal Affairs saying we are
going to get a consultant in now and figure out what options we have for you
people who have teepees. Now, I beg to differ again. It might be called small
potatoes, but that begs the question: Why wasn't that consultation done before
the Minister of Environment decided to shut them down? Why did every community
who is impacted by it be left in the lurch and have these concerns? What are we
going to do after December 31 with our garbage?
So, now we have money being spent by the Department of Municipal Affairs to
go out to do a study to determine what the options are for those communities
that have to shut down. Yet, again, we asked a simple question: Who should these
people go to, these communities? Waste management, we know, falls under
Municipal Affairs; environmental concerns and incinerators fall under the
Minister of Environment. Yet, one does not seem to know what the other one is
doing. In order to properly, I would suggest, assist the people and guide them
as to what they do, give them as much information as you can and give them some
guidance as to how they should unravel this issue. But, that is not how it has
been handled. This government and this department have hundreds and hundreds of
employees. Surely, somebody can put the package of information together and
explain to these communities who says what and how we can go about doing this.
That leads me to the question of consultation and impact and exchange of
ideas. That is the issue of the Town of Port aux Basques. Yes, it is in my
bailiwick. Yes, I have an obligation to raise it because it is a major concern
out there. We have everywhere, from the Codroy Valley, which is in Stephenville
East, down to Grey River, the end of my district in Burgeo & LaPoile. There
is only one representative from the Town of Burnt Islands, and I understand that
that individual does not know, only slightly, he only came on council in Burnt
Islands a little while ago, and asked to be put on the committee. He asked to go
on that committee, the waste management for the Western region, and he got on
there. Great for him, good stuff.
That is a funny thing, because the Town of Port aux Basques has been asking
for two years to get on the committee. The mayor says, what is going on? We are
in Port aux Basques, the bigger community he says. In fact, Port aux Basques
currently, and for the last number of months, have been taking all the garbage
from down the coast from all these communities and seeing that it is looked
after in their incinerator. Yet, they cannot get a member on this board? What is
the magic in having a ten person board? Or maybe a better way to put it is: What
is the problem with having an eleven person board? This is a government that is
open and accountable and accessible and yet one of the major communities in a
region who wants to get involved and get on board and play a positive role,
which they have always done, is told no.
I understand the Town of Stephenville, a fairly large enterprise, it is the
same thing. They cannot get on board and do not have a member. I have no problem
with the explanation that the minister gave saying we want input from smaller
communities but surely that does not remove or ought not to remove the input of
medium-sized communities. The idea is to make a waste management strategy that
is eventually going to work for everybody's benefit. How do you ever get the
train rolling in the right direction and everybody pulling on the lines at the
same time when you have automatically excluded somebody who wants to be
involved?
The Minister of Human Resources here today got up and gave a ministerial
statement concerning disabled persons. He used the word inclusive, and he is.
Other departments and agencies of the government should be equally inclusive,
but we do not have that. We have an exclusive situation. A town that wants to
get involved, that represents a significant portion of the population, that has
the vast majority of the garbage to be dealt with and waste to be dealt with is
told: no, you can't play a role. Now, I do not understand that. There are only
a few reasons that I can contemplate that might ever exist why you would exclude
anyone. Are they stupid? Is there nobody in the Town of Port aux Basques capable
of fulfilling a role on that board to help out? I do not think so. Are they
troublemakers? I do not think so. Anybody who knows Mayor Button and his
council, they are pretty easygoing people. I don't know if they ever caused a
ripple for any administration, this one or the prior ones; not that sort of
individual. In fact, I spoke to him this morning again because we knew about
this issue when we saw the release come out that they put three new people on
two days ago, and Mayor Button said: What is going on? He is on the Federation
of Municipalities. I believe it is the urban committee of the Federation of
Municipalities. He went to a meeting back in February with Minister Denine and
the Deputy Minister and that was one of the issues discussed at that meeting:
Can we put a member on the Western Region Waste Management Board?
Mr. Button tells me this morning because I went back and confirmed it. I
went to the minister yesterday. I would not raise this issue publicly nor did
Mayor Button want me to raise the issue publicly without asking the minister. He
said: Mr. Parsons, would you remind Minister Denine that we had that meeting
back in February? And he told me, when we made that request in fact, he was
going out the door when I said: Now, Minister, you have heard our concerns? He
said: I have heard you and it will be dealt with.
Now, he said, maybe I am missing something, but when a minister tells me, I
have heard you and it is going to be dealt with, I had a pretty good indication
that I was going to have somebody on the board. Now, he said, I think I would be
foolhardy if I were to suggest that Minister Denine didn't commit something to
me. He said: I never raised the issue with him anymore after February because I
knew it was being looked after, as he said.
There were also indications from other people in Municipal Affairs on the
West Coast to the Town of Port aux Basques that it was being looked after and
would be dealt with. In fact, the Town of Port aux Basques submitted a name to
be on the board. There was no indication whatsoever that it would not be looked
after. Lo and behold, out comes the press release.
Now, the minister talks about representation from small communities. You take
the Port au Port region, for example, and the Bay St. George region. We have a
Member from Port au Port on the board; fine and dandy, he should be there. We
have a member from Bay St. George South, we have a member there from
Stephenville Crossing, and we have a member there from Gillams. We have four
smaller communities in the Bay St. George region represented on that board. Yet,
we don't have Stephenville on there, which is smack dab in the middle of all
of them, has the biggest population and the biggest pile of waste. No,
Stephenville doesn't have a member on the board.
The same thing out the other way, you have Cape Ray, Port aux Basques, Fox
Roost-Margaree, Isle aux Morts, Burnt Islands, Rose Blanche, LaPoile, Grand
Bruit, Ramea, Burgeo, Grey River, and the list goes on. You have one member from
Burnt Islands and nobody from the Codroy Valley. If you want to get into the
names up in the Codroy Valley in terms of the size of the communities, there is
a whole pile. There is O'Regans, there is Codroy, there is St. Andrews, there
is South Branch, and the list goes on, Doyles, Upper Ferry. Yet, we do not get a
member from Port aux Basques, after the minister saying what he said to the
mayor. I don't understand. That is not openness and that is not
accountability, and that is not inclusive behaviour.
I didn't hear an answer here today from the minister as to why it wasn't
possible. That is all we are asking, again. If you have some reason for limiting
the size of that board in the Western Region to ten, what is it? What is the
harm of having fifteen there, if they show the interest and want to get
involved?
We are trying to tackle a major problem in this Province, waste management.
As the Minister of Innovation and Trade said, it first hit the table back in
2002. We have been ever since then, six years, trying to unravel it. We have not
made a lot of headway, and now we have a situation where communities who want to
get involved and help out are being told no. I do not understand it. That is not
an inclusive government.
When you want to extrapolate non-inclusive, non-open, non-transparent, it all
fits in the same mesh, then. I do not think I asked any questions today of the
Minister of Environment or the Minister of Municipal Affairs that were unfair in
that context. Why did you make the order before you had the options? Why are you
not letting major towns in the area contribute their ideas and their knowledge
and support? Are there going to be any exceptions to the order that you made?
That is pretty straightforward stuff. That is not rocket science in anybody's
book.
Yet, we had a minister stand up four times and evade the question. We had
another minister who would not get on his feet and even answer the question that
I asked. That is openness and that is accountability and that is transparency?
Have no fear. The people of this Province, whatever we all might be, there is
nobody blind and there is nobody going to accept that as a fair answer, what
happened here today - nobody.
People will make their own judgments as to who is open and who is
accountable. This was a prime example here today of two ministers, and one did
not know what the other one was doing. Neither knew what the other was doing,
and neither was prepared to give any straightforward, straight-shooting answers
here.
I did not ask them complicated, confidential information. I did not ask them
to tell me how much the budget is for, or where you are going to spend the
budget. I did not even ask: When is the Budget coming down? - which some people
are wondering. Yet, we did not get an answer. These are money issues that impact
this Province, and there are still no answers to them.
The question, too, talking about the consultant study that is being done, it
is my understanding and again the minister can correct me it is my
understanding that this consultant that they are now going to hire, to go figure
out what the options are, which is costing some money - we do not know how much,
but it is costing some money there is going to be a meeting tonight, I
understand, in the Town of Burnt Islands, with the representatives on the waste
management board that are there. The Town of Port aux Basques has been invited
to come to that meeting and, in fact, they are going to be expected to play a
major role in helping with setting up, contributing to and implementing whatever
options are available for waste management in Western Newfoundland.
So they are good enough to help out and do it all, but they are not good
enough to sit on the board. Quite frankly, I do not know what answer to tell
them back, because the minister will not tell me why they cannot be on the
board. He cannot tell me that having eleven there is going to destroy the
effectiveness of the board. He has not given me any reason that they are
troublemakers and upstarts who are not going to contribute. So what do I tell
the people, or what does anyone tell the good people of Port aux Basques, why
you cannot have a member on the board? They are not of the right political
stripe? I hope that is not the reason. I would like to think that is not the
reason, because they have a job to do as municipal politicians, and the rest of
us have jobs to do as MHAs, and I would certainly hope that is not the reason,
but I cannot see any other reason, and that is the seriousness of this. That is
why these people are genuinely, seriously concerned out there, that you cannot
be asked, on the one hand, to step up and do your duty and help out, and be
co-operative, and work with us, on the one hand, and then you get this kick in
the teeth on the other hand - without an explanation, by the way.
I think they are due an explanation. In fact, I do not think it behooves the
Minister of Municipal Affairs not to put them on there. Simply because somebody
raises an issue, if it is justified, and a decision that has been made ought to
be reversed, it ought to be reversed because it is just to reverse it. Rather
than getting your back up and saying, oh you did this, and you did that, and
Parsons came in and complained, and therefore you are not getting a member on
the board, let's just see what kind of gumption this minister has, and let's
see how right and proper he can be. Because, now that the concern has been
brought to his attention and there is no good reason to exclude them, why wouldn't
he include them?
I think it is the honourable thing to do, and I think this minister is an
honourable person, and I think it will save everybody - the minister, all of his
officials on the West Coast, all of his staff who have to work every day, not
only on the waste management issue but on every other issue, and there are
hundreds and hundreds of issues that the town has to deal with on a ongoing
basis with the department. It puts a bad taste in their mouth when they feel
that all of a sudden something has gone off the rails for no good reason.
If I were the minister when it was brought to my attention, I would have
said: My, we made a mistake; we have to go back and look at this.
There was no such thing as let's go back and look at it and see what is the
rights or the wrongs or it no, done. That is not good enough. I would like
to think that part of being open and part of being accountable is that you
listen. If something is wrong, you fix it. If it is not right, you make it
right.
One of the persons I spoke to, for example, the brother of the Member for
Bellevue, is the head of the Local Service District of Grey River. I sat down in
his home for an hour during the Easter break. He had the same concerns; we
cannot get any answers. A sincere gentleman, concerned about his community,
wants to know an answer.
That is all we are asking for. Where are the answers? What are the people in
Grey River going to do with their garbage? They shut down their teepee on
December 31. By the way, for anybody who does not know the geography, they are
talking about this mega-dump for the West Coast being in Wild Cove, Bay of
Islands. That is up around Corner Brook, for those who are not familiar with the
geography.
Right now, as it stands, the plan is to put a mega-dump in Wild Cove, Bay of
Islands, but the people have been told to get rid of their incinerators come
December 31. So, all of the people of Grey River, come January 1, have to start
stockpiling their garbage in their community. When they get so much of it
stockpiled, whatever, in a dumpster or whatever they have to put it in - and
they do not know what they have to put it in because they do no know
environmentally what is acceptable and safe for that, either, for storage of
refuge and garbage - then it has to be shipped out, not trucked out, has to be
shipped out on a boat to Burgeo or to Ramea - I would think to Burgeo - where it
is going to hook up with some land line.
There is cost with storing it in Grey River, the dumpsters. There is a cost
to shipping it out on the boat - and, by the way, what kind of boat? Because
there is some concern: is it environmentally proper to ship garbage that you
would have stockpiled in Grey River for whatever, a week or two weeks, is it
proper, under the environmental regulations, to ship that out on the public
ferry service?
They do not even know the answer to that yet. They might have to go get some
private contractor or some other way to ship it out. We do not even know if we
can put it on the ferry, the provincially funded subsidized ferry that services
Grey River to Burgeo. We do not know if that can be dealt with yet. That is
another question they do not know.
Then they get it up to Burgeo. Now, there are 154 kilometres from Burgeo up
to the head of the Trans-Canada, 154 kilometres. They have to get it up there.
They have to get from the head of the Trans-Canada into Corner Brook, which is
another forty minute drive, and then they have to get it to Wild Cove. For the
information of the people in Municipal Affairs, the community of Grey River,
which is a local service district, they do not have a truck. They do not have
any municipal employees to look after all of this trucking. They do not know
what they are going to do with it. We will save it on the wharf for you in a
dumpster, but what happens to it after that? We do not have any money to pay for
that. We do not have any tax base in Grey River.
If you do not have answers to some of these straightforward questions to give
to these people, can you imagine what is going to happen? Where is it going to
be stockpiled and where is the garbage going to go? If it does not get burnt in
the incinerator I would suggest there will be a lot of burning going on in back
gardens. Where does that get us? You cannot avoid the question.
If we have made the decision to go down the road of getting rid of the
teepees, we have to take the responsibility of putting the directions, the
options and the help in place for these people. If they are going to do it on a
regional basis between Ramea, Grey River, Franois, Burgeo, and have some
unified system to do it, they need to know the answers to that stuff. All we are
saying is the answers do not exist right now, and until the answers are found,
why would you order those teepees shut down? I would have thought that you would
not have put the cart before the horse, Mr. Speaker. I would have thought that
you would have some options gone to these people to figure that out, and those
figuring out pieces just have not been done.
In fact, not only everybody on this side is opposed and thinks that the waste
management strategy leaves some things to be desired, the former Mayor of Mount
Pearl - he is currently a member in this House. I will not say his name. It is
not parliamentary acceptable, but the Member for Mount Pearl, the former Mayor
of Mount Pearl, not the one who is currently the Minister of Municipal Affairs,
but the most recent, former Mayor of Mount Pearl, who replaced the former
Speaker of the House, he gave a piece in October, 2006. He wrote a story to The
Telegram . He was the subject of The Telegram . He wrote a story to The
Telegram , Mr. Speaker. In his case, they were opposed to St. John's having
all the control of the waste management piece. Why should St. John's have all
the representation? A big two-page story, actually. It took up all The
Telegram that day.
So, it is not only this member who has questions, and it is not only today
that the questions arose. Those questions have been on the go for some time and
they are legitimate questions. The former Mayor of Mount Pearl asked the
questions legitimately, as he should have. I think he made the point and he made
it well, and it is the same point we are trying to make, is that this is an
evolving strategy that you do not have all the answers to right now but you need
as many people as you can to work together, to co-operate, to get to where you
need to go. He was questioning the make up of boards at that time, and that is
all that is happening on the West Coast. They are questioning the makeup of the
boards and how many people you should and ought to have involved, and they are
looking for answers.
In fact, Mr. Fenwick, who was a former member of this House, who heads up one
of the local service districts on the West Coast - I mean, this is not just
coming from this member and it is not only coming from the Town of Port aux
Basques or the Town of Burgeo or the community of Grey River. There is a story
in The Western Star dealing with the environment, and the mayor - he is
the Mayor of Cape St. George, Mr. Fenwick. He says: hiring a consultant is not
enough. Now this is the consultant that I referred to when I said the minister -
he appointed a consultant.
MR. DENINE: We got to start somewhere, boy.
MR. PARSONS: Yes, I say to the minister, that is a very good comment from
the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that the minister now is prepared to give us his
comments from the peanut gallery because I asked him straightforward questions
in this House today and he would not come to his feet on some of them. He would
not rise to his feet. His comment just now, and it is very telling, talking
about appointing a consultant. He has obviously missed the point. He says you
have to start somewhere. Wow! Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point that
I have been up here preaching about for the last hour. That is what my questions
were all about in Question Period. Why did you appoint a consultant? He tells us
now: It is because we got to start somewhere.
Well, my question to the minister again is, and I would love to hear his
answer back again: Why did you not appoint the consultant to figure out the
options before the Minister of Environment went out and told them all to shut
down? Now, that is a pretty straightforward question. You had to start
somewhere, as you say. Why didn't you start with that piece before the order
went out to shut them down? Why do we now have this same minister who says we
got to start somewhere? He is obviously aware of the shutdown order because
according to the MHA for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, he told her on April 8: yes,
we are going to give some exemptions to that. We are going to allow some
exemptions to that.
MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).
MR. PARSONS: Well, I have information. Now, maybe the information - the
minister says I do not know what I am talking about. Well, minister, the e-mail
that I got and the copy that I am going to give to you speaks for itself. The
staff member of the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune says they spoke with you
and there is going to be an exemption in the case of Franois. Now that is
black on white, minister.
I say to you, you ought to have started somewhere with your consultations and
you ought to have started before the Minister of Environment is rushing off to
shut things down and cause people all kinds of grief. That is all this is about.
Nobody here disagrees with getting rid of teepees. Nobody disagrees with having
the consultants. Nobody disagrees that you should help these people financially
if you have to, but the question is, how do we get there? That is all that has
been asked here. Yet, what do you get met with when you try to ask some
straightforward questions and get some answers? You get a runaround, and that
makes it tougher.
There is nobody in this House who has not made a mistake. I am amongst them
lots of times. Sometimes, if you do something that you need to look back and
say: Whoa, maybe I did not handle that right. Maybe I did not handle that right.
Maybe there is a way to fix this. Maybe I did screw that up a little bit. People
are understanding. People are not going to condemn you because you happened to
go down a wrong road before you realized it. Maybe it is not even a wrong road.
Maybe I am on the wrong road because I do not have the full information. I can
only speak from what I know and the people who I have contacted. I did not get
up here and create any of this.
When I say I spoke to the Mayor of Ramea, I spoke to him. I spoke to the
Mayor of Burgeo. I spoke to the head of the local service district in Grey
River. I spoke to the Mayor of Port aux Basques. I can only tell you based on
the facts that I have. Now, if there is something wrong with that, clarify it.
We do not need to make a big issue out of this, but you tend to force it to be a
big issue when you get evasive. Most of these questions that we ask could be
answered if somebody says: Yes, okay, we understand you. Here is why we did it.
All I got from the minister on the board issue was: No, got ten, that is it,
done. That is it, done. Are there going to be exemptions? We still don't have
straight answer on that one.
Now, I did not raise the exemption issue from the closures because I thought
about it. I did not raise that. The Mayor of Ramea asked me that: Do you think
we can get an exemption?
In fact, I never even had an answer until this other document surfaced, when
one community got it, apparently. So I said, well, if that is the case, I guess
we will all get it, if you justify it. I am just asking now, where the confusion
is coming from, that is all. It just makes the job so much tougher when it seems
like you are trying to walk uphill all the time to get these answers when you
need not be walking uphill. We should be on the level with each other. We should
be asking questions, and we should be allowed to get some answers.
On Bill 21, Mr. Speaker, which, as I say, is a money bill, again I think this
is a good piece of legislation. We will be supporting this, absolutely; because,
from what I understand, when that happened was, in a lot of the pension funds in
days gone past they had a surplus. We did not just recognize it here, of course,
it happened all over Canada, and all over North America, that there were some
hard times, and the valuations of these they called it the perfect storm, I
believe, in the pension industry, is what one individual, Julie Dickson, who is
the Superintendent of Financial Institutions of Canada, said. She said: the
perfect storm has hit the pension sector over the last few years. New actuarial
rules which reflect increased life expectancy of Canadians, a more market-based
approach to valuing pension liabilities, combined with low interest rates and
the stock market losses which resulted from the technology meltdown, resulted in
challenges for pension plan sponsors and members.
All those four things came together. It was the perfect storm, and you ended
up with a lot of pension funds because of all those things. They had x number of
members, they were supposed to have x amount of dollars, and in a lot of cases
they never had the dollars. The surpluses went to the deficiency. Of course,
that is troublesome, because if anybody pays into a pension fund, only to find
out down the road that, whoa, I am going to live twenty years after I retire but
there is not enough money in my pension fund, what is going on? Where did the
money go?
What this is doing, it is going to require people, that you must maintain a
certain level of funding, so that you cannot, at the end of the day, say: Sorry,
we managed your funds as best we can. We had your pension money but, because of
certain circumstances, we do not have it here now and we cannot look after all
of you.
This is a legal requirement, as I understand, that this Province now is going
to step in line with the rest of Canada and say, if you are administering a plan
here for someone, you must make sure that you keep enough funds in there to pay
out of the pension when the time comes. That is strictly what this is, and I
think that is a good piece of legislation. I think it is needed, and again it is
an example of how Legislatures work.
If this thing had not happened somewhere else, in some other jurisdiction, if
we had not had this technology meltdown and stock market dips and so on, it
might never have been an issue, but it became an issue because somebody
experienced it somewhere else. The government, in fairness to the minister and
the government, became proactive on it and said yes, we have to protect these
people, so they passed this piece of legislation, or want it passed today, and
we will certainly be speaking in favour of it.
It is a good piece of legislation. It needs to be done. When the time comes,
in all of the different stages of the bill, we will certainly be voting in
favour of it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Collins): The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order before we
carry on with debate of this bill, if there are any further members who wish to
speak. I do it because I did not interrupt my colleague, my friend, the
Opposition House Leader, I guess, in almost an hour of debate, or pretty close
to it, on Bill 21. I could have, but I chose not to do so. There was no urgency
to do it.
I want to make clear that what took place in the House this afternoon in
debate in principal, second reading of Bill 21, I do not want, in any way, to be
considered any precedent by the Chair for any future references as to what is or
is not a money bill.
Bill 21, Mr. Speaker, is,
An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. Let
me read the amendment. It is very short. Let me read it for the House and
anybody who might be listening. This is the amendment. It says, "Where, on
the termination, after April 1, 2008, of a pension plan, other than a
multi-employer pension plan, the assets in the pension fund are less than the
value of the benefits provided under the plan, the employer shall, as prescribed
by the regulations, make the payments into the pension fund, in addition to the
payments required under subsection (1), that are necessary to fund the benefits
provided under the plan."
That is the amendment that Bill 21 proposes to the Pension Benefits Act,
1997. It has nothing to do with the expenditure of public funds, Mr. Speaker.
The only time a money bill we refer to them colloquially in the Legislature
as a money bill - the only time a money bill is a money bill in this Legislature
is when it deals with the expenditure of public funds, when it deals with a
budget measure, when it deals with a tax measure, when it deals with a tax bill,
when it deals with a loan guarantee bill, when it deals with the expenditure of
public money that has to be appropriated by vote of this Legislature. Then, that
is a money bill in its purest and simplest form.
We passed bills oodles of times that referred to the private expenditure of
money, or control the private expenditure of money. The bill that we did the
other day on funeral embalmers, for example, there is a component of public
money in that, particularly if you prepay on a funeral. That was not the
principle of the bill. The principle was to do something else.
The principle of this bill was to do another matter. It had nothing to do
with waste disposal committees. It had nothing to do with environment. It had
nothing to do with municipal affairs. It had nothing to do with the expenditure
of public money, so I want to make it - I would ask Your Honour, at some point,
the Chair at some point, to make it clear that the debate that took place here
today, while I have no objection to it, and if I did I should have stood, which
I did not, so in that context I do not object, but maybe some time down the road
when the Opposition House Leader is Government House Leader, somebody might say:
but on April 22, 2008, the then Opposition House Leader proposed that this
pension bill was a money bill, the expenditure of public money. The precedent
has been set, Your Honour, and the House can do nothing about it only vote to
overrule it.
Well, I would not want it to be said that happened on my watch as Government
House Leader, and I do not propose that it happen, because I am sure that it is
contrary to every rule in the parliamentary rule book, that this it is a
stretch beyond the wildest imagination that this would be considered a public
money bill. It is not, and I would ask for a ruling on that at some time, at
Your Honour's pleasure.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In response to the point of order, maybe I can make things easy for the Chair
as well.
First of all, I appreciate the courtesy and graciousness of the Government
House Leader. As he says, he could have stood up on a point of order and
interfered and interjected, made his point at any time that I was speaking, but,
being the gentleman that he is, he did not do that. I appreciate that, number
one, the courtesies that you have shown to myself as the speaker.
I would agree, as well, that it should not be a precedent. I would agree, as
well, if that is of any assistance to the Chair. I would say that it should not
be a precedent. Maybe in the past - certainly since I have been here - we have,
from time to time, taken liberties as to what could or could not be done. We are
pretty good in terms of dealing with each other consensually and with leave.
Maybe in terms of where it fits under the money bill, I have no problem in
agreeing that the Government House Leader may well be right in his
interpretation of what constitutes a money bill.
I appreciate the fact that, given the timeliness of this issue, he allowed
me, without interruption, to have the opportunity to speak on the issue at
length. Again, I agree that in future maybe we should all here in the Chamber
confine ourselves, when we talk about money bills, to Budget, to Supplementary
Supply, Interim Supply, tax bills and expenditure of the public purse. If that
would be of any assistance to the Chair, I would have no problem in agreeing
that he has raised a valid and justifiable point of order and that we should
confine ourselves to the discussion of money bills in the future as per the
dictates that he laid out.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has heard both arguments here and understands that
the Standing Orders are somewhat vague and silent on what constitutes a money
bill and what does not. I will take it under advisement for a ruling as
expeditiously as possible.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: T hank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to take a bit of time to speak to this bill, a bill that is short,
a very short amendment to the Pension Benefits Act, but a very important bill,
because this amendment to the Pension Benefits Act will ensure that people who
are covered by pensions will not be penalized if the assets in the pension fund
run out. It is a very small thing, I think, that we can do for the working
people in this Province. People pay into pension plans. It is not just the
employer, whether it is a private employer or a public employer. It is not just
the employer who pays into the pension plans. Every worker who has a pension
plan has paid into it, and the one thing that they should be able to depend on,
during the time when they no longer are doing paid labour, is to have that
pension that they paid into, no matter how long they paid into it. Sometimes
people get a pension that is partial. The way work goes today, a lot of people
have more than one job over their working life and they may have a number of
partial pension, but all of those partial pensions together add up to their
having some kind of life of security after they are no longer doing paid labour.
The least that we can do as legislators in this Province is to make sure that
when the time comes to receive their money, there is money there for them to
receive, because it is their money. I know the employers put money in as well
but it is not just the employers' money, it is the workers' money also.
Actually, to put it bluntly, it is about time that this clause is there in the
Pension Benefits Act. I am surprised that it was not put in before. Maybe when
the government put the almost $2 million into the teachers' pension fund,
precisely to avoid the kind of thing happening to teachers that is alluded to in
this amendment, to make sure that the pension fund is kept up so that the
teachers would continue to receive their pensions, perhaps when the government
did that, they realized then that they should cover responsibility for other
workers who might be affected, so realized that the Pension Benefits' Act
needed the amendment that is being proposed today.
I want to take a moment to talk a little bit about pensions since this
amendment is on pensions. We have a responsibility to people who have worked in
our public sector. We have a responsibility to them to ensure that they have not
just pensions but that they have adequate pensions, that they have pensions that
are enabling them to have lives at least as good as what they had when they were
working. They need to know that they are not going to be living in poverty. We
know that we have that issue in the Province, that we do have pensioners who are
living in poverty. We have pensioners who are going to food banks. We have
pensioners who cannot afford to pa