Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Oral Questions; Statements by Ministers — 6 December 2001 (44th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIV No. 44)
2001-12-06
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 6, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 44
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
On Wednesday, December 5, the Opposition House Leader rose on a point of
order after the Chair had intervened with respect to the reading of documents
during Oral Question Period. Our Standing Orders are very clear on that point.
Standing Order 26(4) states: "Oral questions must not be prefaced by the
reading of letters, telegrams, newspaper extracts or
preambles of any
kind." The Chair interprets this rule to mean the reading of
preambles. As
we know, short
preambles are permitted to original questions. This is the only
logical
interpretation for that.
The Opposition House Leader's point was: the asking of a question was
permitted if the document being read was Hansard. The Chair again referred the
member to our Standing Orders and indicated that members may refer to documents
but could not read from documents and that the point about Hansard would be
taken under advisement. It is the opinion of the Chair that members must not
read from anything when asking a question.
In Westminister, for example, a member was called to order for reading a
document while asking a question. Referring to documents is acceptable, verbatim
quotations are not.
In the interest of clarity, I want to inform all hon. members that Standing
Order 26(4) applies to all documents.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is with deep regret that I rise to inform members of the passing of a
gentleman best described as a pioneer, a mover and shaker in local politics and
a man of great dignity, Mr. Archibald Lawrence of Corner Brook.
Mr. Lawrence was a key player in the creation of the present city of Corner
Brook through his many efforts to amalgamate the former communities of Curling,
Humbermouth, Corner Brook West and Corner Brook East.
Mr. Lawrence was the last mayor of Corner Brook East and he served on Corner
Brook's first city council from 1956 to 1963.
He was born in Channel-Port aux Basques in 1912, and at the age of fourteen
he moved to Corner Brook where his father took up employment at the pulp and
paper mill.
Upon graduation from Corner Brook Public School, Arch began a twenty-five
year career with Harvey and Company and Harvey's Industrial. Later working
with Lundrigan's Building Supplies and the City of Corner Brook, before
retiring in 1977.
In addition to his involvement in municipal politics Arch volunteered a great
deal of his time to his community through his involvement with the Church Lads'
Brigade, the Masonic Lodge, the Lions Club, the Humber Municipal Association and
the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities - an organization, by
the way, which bestowed upon him a lifetime honourary membership.
Mr. Lawrence was also instrumental in constructing with volunteer labour All
Saints Anglican Church and the former St. Marks School in Corner Brook.
I ask all hon. members to join with me in extending our deepest sympathies to
Mr. Lawrence's wife, Isabel, and their five children: Grace, Edward, Joan,
Phyllis and Cecil.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, sixty-two years ago, shortly after the beginning of World War II
and following the call from Great Britain for volunteers to enlist, a group of
young men from Newfoundland and Labrador assembled in St. John's ready to join
the Royal Navy. On November 27 of that year, nearly 200 volunteers left St. John's
on board the RMS Newfoundland and arrived in Liverpool on December 12.
This group of Newfoundland naval veterans saw service in many parts of the
world from the oceans around South America to the Indian and Pacific Oceans, but
primarily they served in the battlefields of the North Atlantic. Some paid the
supreme sacrifice.
Following their return in 1945, they formed the First Two Hundred Naval
Association and until this year they were able to hold an annual reunion.
Unfortunately, due to failing health and decreased members, this autumn their
reunion had to be canceled.
It was my privilege, while I served as the mayor of Mount Pearl, to meet and
know many of these special veterans. Branch 36 of the Royal Canadian Legion in
Mount Pearl, where, Mr. Speaker, I am an honourary member, have dedicated a room
to the memory of the first 200 and it was at Branch 36 where the annual reunions
were held from 1988 until 2000.
Mr. Speaker, one of the photographs that hangs in my office is of this
special group of veterans as they assembled on Parade Grounds at Fort Townshend
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the photograph is of the first 200 as they
assembled on the Parade Grounds at Fort Townshend in St. John's ready for
departure to Great Britain.
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure those too frail to attend any more reunions
that they hold a special place in our hearts.
Mr. Speaker, to the families of those who have answered their last roll call,
and I am sure I speak for all members of this House when we say that their
contributions to our Province and to the preservation of freedom in our world
will forever command our respect and our admiration.
Mr. Speaker, to all veterans everywhere, and to all their families, and on
this day, especially those members of the First 200 Naval Association, we wish
them all a very Merry Christmas and best wishes for the New Year.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell
Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to bring to the attention of the House of Assembly today, a young man
Maj. Gen. W.A. Howard Award as the outstanding army cadet for Newfoundland and
Labrador for the year 2001.
The criteria for the award includes both conduct, contribution to corps
activities, peer relationships, standing on the National Star Certification
Exam, results of career courses and academic rating.
Lee has been a member of the cadets for four years and holds the rank of
Master Warrant Officer. He has attended summer training camps in New Brunswick,
British Columbia, Ontario, England and Scotland.
Lee is a Level 11 student at Holy Spirit High school in Manuels. He also
recently received the Duke of Edinburgh Award, bronze, and is working on the
silver award.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating a young man,
cadet in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for the year 2001.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have had a great history of
fighting for freedom. We all know of the bravery and tragedies of the First
World War and the Second World War. We know of the many battles such as Beaumont
Hamel, and the great respect all nations held for the Blue Puttees, the first
group that went overseas from Newfoundland.
The people of the world know of the great sacrifices of the Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians that served in the Armed Forces of the Second World War, the
Canadian Armed Forces and in the British Armed Forces such as the Royal Navy, in
which my father served. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians also bravely served in
the Korean Conflict.
Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have always played a major role
in peacekeeping forces throughout the world in areas of conflict such as Kosavo.
Presently, Mr. Speaker, many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from all over
the Province are again putting their lives at risk and fighting for freedom,
peace and security in the war on terrorism. Many of these men and women are from
the District of Cape St. Francis, whom I know personally. I know, Mr. Speaker,
these heroes will follow in the tradition of those who went before them and do
us proud.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to remember and thank these
very unselfish and brave Newfoundlandlers and Labradorians, and that we wish
them all a battle free and pleasant Christmas.
Mr. Speaker, let us all pray for their safe return home to their families as
soon as possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, this summer, five young Newfoundlanders
participated in a Junior Team Canada Trade Mission to Asia.
Each participant was required to raise $3,500 primarily through partnerships
with local companies which they would promote and seek contacts and
opportunities for while in Asia.
The participants this year were: Kevin Farrell, 17, of Marystown; Krista
Peddle, 20, of St. John's; Chris Roberts, 20, of St. John's; Jillian Stoyles,
18, of St. John's; and Ryan Chaisson, 17, of Upper Ferry in the Codroy Valley.
Junior Team Canada is organized by Global Vision, a non-profit organization.
It is dedicated to providing youth, ages sixteen to twenty-five, with the
skills, experience and knowledge necessary to become the new generation of
business leaders. This year, forty-two students from across the country
participated in this trade mission.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating the
participants in this trade mission and also commending Global Vision for the
work they are doing.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to acknowledge a very successful fund-raising concert held in my
district last Sunday, December 2, 2001. Called "Save the Beauty and
Tradition of Quidi Vidi", the benefit was held at the Ship Inn on Duckworth
Street from 2:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
I want to thank the musicians and performers who generously donated their
time and talent to the occasion. They include: Ron Hynes, The Sons of Erin, The
Navigators, Jim Fiddler, Rasa, Larry Foley, The Panting Brothers, Gearbox, Eddy
Stevens, Scott Goudie, Paul Ronayne, Bareback, Mike Walsh and Graham Wells, and
Fergus O'Byrne and Fergus Brown O'Byrne.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the organizers of this event for their hard work
and dedication. The benefit raised over $2,000 for the Quidi Vidi Village
Foundation, whose mission is to preserve and enhance the historic values of
Quidi Vidi Village.
The members of the Foundation are very encouraged by the huge numbers who
turned out and who recognize the value of our historic resources. I know that
the money raised will serve to assist the Quidi Vidi Village Foundation in their
efforts to protect and preserve the physical beauty, tradition, and cultural
heritage of Quidi Vidi Village.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary
Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, today the flags are flown at half mast as it is
the 12 th Anniversary of our remembrance of the fourteen women killed
at L'cole Polytechnique in Montreal on December 6, 1989.
This terrible tragedy serves as a focal point to raise awareness of violence
against women in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the oppression of a group because of gender, race, sexual
orientation, age or class is often at the root of violence in our society and
the world over. Recent world events, for example, made us very aware of the
oppression of women in Afghanistan.
It seems appropriate, as we move forward to address issues of violence
related to gender and race in this Province and country, that we also take steps
to ensure that the power imbalance that leads to discrimination against women in
our global community is addressed.
Mr. Speaker, women in Afghanistan need to have a say in the restructuring of
their society, and I urge my colleagues in this House, our community leaders,
and citizens of this Province, to join the women's community in advocating for
the inclusion of women in that process.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Once again, I join with the minister in marking an event that has become a
symbol for the violence so many women face. This act of violence has changed our
country forever. The fourteen women who were so violently slain at L'cole
Polytechnique because of their gender died needlessly, but will we let their
deaths be in vain? We have come some distance in our attitudes towards the issue
of violence, but have we come far enough? What have we learned? Are women still
dying in the same numbers through acts of violence? We may say that there is
less violence being reported, but is more violence happening? Are women being
silenced because the response is not adequate? Are we once again victimizing
them because our response to their call against the violence they are suffering
is not adequate.
I ask us to again rededicate ourselves to the cause of stamping out all
violence, and let us once again remember the names of those women who died at L'cole
Polytechnique. I think most of the members of the House and probably of the
general public can bring to mind the name of the perpetrator.
I would like to have leave to name the women whose lives were lost in 1989.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you.
Michele Richard, who was age 21; Helene Colgan, age 23; Nathalie Croteau, age
23; Maryse Leclair, age 23; Sonia Pelletier, age 23; Annie Turcotte, age 21;
Maryse Laganiere, age 25; Barbara Daigneault, age 22; Anne-Marie Lemy, age 27;
Anne-Marie Edward, age 21; Maud Haviernick, age 29; Anne Saint-Arneault, age 23;
Genevieve Bergeron, age 21; Barbara Maria Kleuznick, age 31.
These women were in the prime of their lives, and not only did they lose
their lives that day but their families lost something as well. They lost the
opportunity to see their daughters and their sisters lead full, productive
lives.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While we remember the tragedy in Montreal on December 6, 1989, we need also
to remind ourselves that violence against women in our society continues. An
average of 140,000 women are victims each year of criminal acts of violence by
their spouses. To give you an idea of the size of the problem, Canadian
government statistics show that $4 billion per year is spent on medical costs
dealing with wife abuse in this country.
The minister mentions the world affairs and, yes, I want to remind people of
a quote from Mahatma Gandhi which is relevant -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: - that, poverty is the worst form of violence. In our own
country 60 per cent of single parent women live in poverty, and fear of abject
poverty leaves many women in abusive relationships. We do have, in our own
country and throughout the world, a long way to go to end violence against
women.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Deputy Premier, the acting head of the
government. Can he confirm - we have information and our own sources tell us
that government has reached a conclusion with respect to the development of
White Rose. Can he confirm, some time between now and in the next week or so,
that government will actually announce a deal that they have reached with White
Rose with respect to the development plan that has been put before them?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could just let me say, I think the hon.
gentleman knows the process that takes place here. First of all, the development
plan, the benefits plan, is released by C-NOPB, then it is put to government for
its consideration and signed off by both the provincial and federal ministers.
Then after that, I think it is fair to say that they have until December 27 for
that process to occur, for both ministers to study the benefits plan that has
been put forward by C-NOPB. Our decision is then given by sign off on the
developmental plan by the two ministers and then, Mr. Speaker - if I could for
just one more second because I think it is important to establish the guidelines
- I think the company has another month to give project sanction to that
development plan to set the things in motion to get it done.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that government has
already dealt with this, that the outlines are agreed upon, the details are
agreed upon. Can the Deputy Premier confirm that in terms of the project
execution phase, say beginning right now when the deal is announced and say
2004, that the total number of hours associated - person hours and employment
hours - are exactly 9,100,000? Can he confirm that a substantial bulk of that,
somewhere in the vicinity of 4 million to 5.5 million person hours of work
related to White Rose, will actually be done in the Province? Can he confirm
that, and can he confirm what we are saying is actually fact?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows the process. He knows
that the benefits plan has been given to the minister, the government is
considering it, the minister is considering it. He knows full well, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate his question because he should question, it is his right to
question, but it is also our right and our duty to see that the process is
followed, and followed diligently. We are doing that. The Minister of Mines and
Energy - along with myself as the industrial benefits minister, the rep P&P
and the rest of Cabinet - are considering what the benefits plan is saying to
us. That is the framework in which we are operating. We have until December 27
to release any of those figures and to confirm or deny that we agree with
anything that has come forward from the C-NOPB, or not agree.
I want to assure him of this: That it will be along the guidelines of
maximizing the return from the benefits of this resource offshore for the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: I want to assure him of one other thing, and that is that we
will go through this with due diligence, but we will, in the process, not hang
up one day longer than we feel is necessary to ensure that we have gotten
everything that we can get out of this - out of this project that is a natural
resource - for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. TULK: We will not be one day longer than it is necessary to be.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Whether the Deputy Premier is willing to release details now or not, based on
the information that we have the provincial government have reached their own
conclusions on what is there before it.
Can he confirm today, with respect to the fabrication work associated with
White Rose, that an agreement has been reached in principle to conduct and do
that work in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Can he confirm that the
fabrication work associated with the White Rose project, that the provincial
government has reached an agreement to see the bulk of that work done in this
Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much plainer I can be to the
hon. gentleman. I realize what the score is here. The score is to try to get out
in public, to scoop the story, to make sure that a good news story is put
forward first by the Opposition. That is fair game. But, I have to say to him
that there is a process here that has to be followed, is set down in legislation
by both orders of government, and I believe, I could be wrong on this, it was a
process that was put in place by the party to which he belongs.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: I am not going to get into that with the hon. gentleman today.
I am not going to do that today. I am just going to say to him that the process
is there to be followed, and we will not delay one day longer than it takes to
get what we think we can get out of this project to maximize the returns to
Newfoundland and Labrador. Not one day longer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: But we will not negotiate in public, and I will not confirm and
talk about speculation - any more than I will about Marystown - not speculate
about what he heard. Will I confirm what he heard? It will all be confirmed in
good time and in due time. That is all I can say to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So, the Deputy Premier is clear. The score here is to get the questions and
the information out front so a situation like when you sold the Marystown
Shipyard for a buck, that people actually go to work this time. That is the
score, I say to the Deputy Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
My understanding is that the agreement has been reached to lease Marystown
Shipyard, and in particular, the Cow Head fabrication facility. Based upon our
information an agreement has been reached to lease it. I would like to ask him
this question: From whom will the company lease this shipyard or Cow Head
fabrication facility from? Will it be leased, possibly, based on your own
commentary by the provincial government in a possible expropriation or have you
reached some other successful conclusion in resolving the ownership issue and
the development of - and getting work to the Marystown Shipyard and, hopefully,
for the Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. gentleman - and I am not
going to tell him how but it will all unfold for him, I hope, in good time. I
want to tell him that his speculation is a little off. I not going to tell how
today, because I am not going to lay out the details of anything that we are
negotiating. I do not negotiate in public until it is a deal. Then I will put it
out in front of you and then you can come at me as to whether it is a good deal
or a bad deal.
Let me give him just one little tidbit out of the benefits report. He will
see that an Atlantic Accord that was put forward by Mr. Mulroney, the Prime
Minister of day, and Mr. Peckford, who was then the Premier of the day, by his
party, that maybe the Atlantic Accord did not inflict that much prosperity on
Newfoundland anyway. That is what he might find out in this benefits plan, some
things that have not been said before. I am not going to speculate to him, but I
have to say him that in terms of Marystown -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to now conclude his answer.
MR. TULK: Let me just keep down his feelings. In terms of Marystown - and
I will finish here with this - I am far more hopeful for the people of Marystown
today than I have been in twelve months. Far more hopeful for them and I don't
want to destroy that by throwing things back and forth across this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
A startling statistic that we all know in this Province is that some 50,000
people have left this Province in the last ten years. Another known fact, the
truth is, most of those people who have left are from small town, rural
Newfoundland and Labrador. What has compounded that is that thousands more have
left rural Newfoundland communities to move into the urban part of Newfoundland.
So really, the rural part of Newfoundland has been the hardest hit with this
situation.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen short gaps, stop gaps, but I want to ask the
minister the first question: What in long term have we seen for these
communities of rural Newfoundland and Labrador who need some help desperately?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I guess when you look at the number of small towns in this Province, and the
municipalities in the form of government that is set up, we have more entities
here - councils and local service districts - than anywhere else across the
country. We have 278 councils, 151 local service districts, for less than the
total population of the City of Winnipeg.
I have discussed that with the Federation of Municipalities. I have discussed
that with NLAMA group. One of the ways that we are looking at doing that is for
many of the smaller communities - it is happening in a number of places. It is
happening on the Northern Peninsula. We had a gentleman who came in to see me
sometime ago, who said that he would like to take two incorporated towns, seven
unincorporated towns, and be able to form one manageable unit as far as
administration is concerned. I think that is a good way to go. It also happened
in Eastport area where one of the councillors from one of the towns came in and
said: There are five or six towns here, we share water, we share waste
management, we even share the dogcatcher, why can't we share administrative
services? I think that is the way to go.
Now, you are right that many of the smaller communities out there do have
problems. One of the things that we are working at, and I think I mentioned it
in the House here not too long ago, is what we are doing with the Federation of
Municipalities.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. LANGDON: Just one more second to conclude, if it is okay, Mr.
Speaker.
The fact is, we are looking at the municipal operating grants. If you look at
again the communities in the Province, you have the largest number of
communities at the base and the smallest number at the front. The way the
municipal operating grants are happening is at the front and this way. The
pyramid is reversed. We have to try to find a way, along with the federation and
everybody else, to find ways whereby we might be able to change the municipal
operating grant to help the smaller communities. We are open, Mr. Speaker. There
is a lot of work to be done and I want to work with all the groups to ensure the
viability of many of the smaller communities.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Indeed there is a big problem with the MOGs. They have been slashed and cut
for the last number of years. Mr. Speaker, this is the question that a lot of
the mayors and councillors were asking at the conference that we attended just a
short while ago. They were asking. Can the minister tell these communities today
that these reductions will actually stop, and in some of the smaller rural
Newfoundland communities, will they see an increase in their municipal operating
grants?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot tell any town today what they will or will not receive. That process
is in place. We have a committee of which the Newfoundland and Labrador
Federation of Municipalities is a part, of which the administrators under NLAMA,
Newfoundland and Labrador Administrators Association is a part, of which people
in my own department are a part. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that some time
during 2002 we might be able to come up with a formula so that we might be able,
in the next fiscal year, to be able to help many of the smaller communities that
are out there now.
That process is ongoing, so I cannot tell you yes or whatnot because I am not
a part of the actual working group. I am sure, when they have come to some
agreement, they will bring it to me and then we will be able to consider it and
ask government to consider it overall.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, again speaking to mayors and councillors,
especially at this conference where you get a great opportunity to talk to so
many of them, they all say the same thing. If they have any chance at all of
economic recovery, Mr. Speaker, they have to maintain their infrastructure. As
we all know, Mr. Speaker, infrastructure of water and sewer and roads is
collapsing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
What they are asking is: Is the minister going to see a status quo in the
program he is doing now, which is falling short, or is he going to put in a new
program that will really address the infrastructure in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This year, for the first time, we have had a three-pronged approach to
infrastructure in the Province. We had the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure
Program, we had the Newfoundland and Labrador Capital Works Program, and we also
had a water program for the communities across the Province. For the
Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program, Mr. Speaker, it was designed
primarily for rural Newfoundland.
There are some instances, as the hon. member would know, in his area, that
the provincial government picked up, in some instances, as much as 90 per cent
of the share of the municipality.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: There were other instances where we picked up 80 per cent,
75 per cent, and 70 per cent. We were able to do that because of the multi-year
plan that we had in for larger cities like St. John's and Corner Brook and
some of the others.
As far as the water problem is concerned, we budgeted $1.8 million. I can say
to the hon. member today, we have spent more than $9 million for disinfection
and chlorination systems in this particular Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Is it enough? The answer is, no; but, I am telling you that
we have made a good start. We want to work at it and we want to make sure that
not only rural Newfoundland but also the urban areas are well served. We will
work at that over the next little while to make sure that it becomes a -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LANGDON: - better reality for the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.
Last week, Minister, I brought up a patient who was in intensive care, for whom
home care had been provided, but he is still in intensive care. Today I have a
case of a woman who is in the Health Sciences Centre; she has cancer. She has
been medically discharged. As a matter of fact, her doctor said she would do
much better at home, far less risk of infection. Her home care -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS S. OSBORNE: The Minister of Finance is saying this is pathetic? It is
indeed pathetic. This is indeed pathetic.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to her question.
MS S. OSBORNE: It is indeed pathetic, Minister, and I ask: When can this
woman expect to be home? She has a son at home who is willing to give some time
with her. She has been approved for five hours a day; she does not want to lose
her dignity by having her son do her personal care. When can she expect to be
home?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to discuss individual
cases here in the House of Assembly. There is a very appropriate channel to take
if information is being sought around individual cases and that is, of course,
through the board who handles home care; and, of course, my office is always
available as well on a private basis to respond to individual specific cases.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Government Services and Lands. Given that
his twenty-nine inspectors have so many duties, Mr. Speaker, and they are unable
to inspect the water in the public water supplies only half the number of times
that they are supposed to, if they have been unable to inspect restaurants for
public health reasons, will the minister not agree that it would be more
appropriate to have the public health matters inspection be dealt with by the
Department of Health so that they can be given the priority that they deserve?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
No, I do not think it matters where the inspectors reside, in which
department they reside. The question is, how we use the resources that we have.
We want to have more inspectors and we are looking to finance more positions in
our next budget, Mr. Speaker, but right now we are doing more inspections in
this Province than we have ever done. We have a lot more demand for our
inspectors this year that was not anticipated when the budget was put together
for this year, and we are hoping to be able to have more resources in the future
to do more. At present, we are doing a good job in this Province. More money is
being devoted to water quality than was ever devoted in this Province and we are
pretty proud of the job we are able to do.
If the hon. member wants to suggest that anything would change simply by
moving inspectors from one department to another, he will have to make a
stronger case than he has made so far for it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, when a public health officer, medical officer of
health, is not told about an E.coli outbreak in her district because it goes
through three departments of government, then that is a case for having the
public health department deal with public health issues.
I ask the minister again, given the fact that the inspectors are responsible
liquor licensing, enforcement of the Tobacco Control Act, daycares, swimming
pools, schools and public water supplies, why doesn't the minister acknowledge
they are not been given adequate priority for public health issues because they
are only doing half of what they should be doing in water quality tests and
one-third of what they should be doing in food establishments, public health
issues? Can the minister not acknowledge that?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not acknowledge something that is not
a fact. What the member contends is certainly not a fact. While we would like to
be doing more inspections than we are doing, we are doing a pretty good job. The
Canadian standard is four inspections a month. We are doing about two right now,
but we are doing a lot better than we have done in the past. We are endeavoring
to do more and we intend to do more in the next year or so, Mr. Speaker, so I do
not think that the member has a great deal to be concerned about.
As for the particular instance of E.coli he is speaking about, that was a
breakdown in the process. That could occur regardless of what department
inspectors may be in. Sometimes people make mistakes and those kinds of things
happen. We do not pretend to be perfect, but we do believe that we are doing a
good job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Education. I say to the minister
that two schools in my district are earmarked for roofing repairs. The students
and staff of those schools have had to deal with long-term problems with these
leaking roofs, seriously comprising air quality and student/staff safety. At
long last, in May, tenders were awarded, and last August tons of materials were
delivered and placed upon the roofs of these schools. It is now early December
and the repair work is still not carried out despite excellent fall weather;
constant lobbing by the board, by the staff and by the parents.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, as the one responsible, if she can explain
the unnecessary delay in carrying out repairs so crucial to ensure a healthy and
safe learning environment for students and staff of these two schools?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
All I can say is that I am so pleased that we have been able to provide the
necessary funding to move ahead with these types of initiatives.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: In fact, this government has put more money back into the
education system than any government in its history.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: As for the situation that the hon. member refers to, I can only
assume that he has had discussions with the board to try and determine why the
work has not taken place. It is certainly not a reflection on the Department of
Education because we do not go out and repair roofs. We provide the funding to
do just that.
I am hoping he has had the discussion with the school board, and if there is
anything that we can do to move it forward we will certainly do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A larger issue for the minister, or for her counterpart in Works, Services
and Transportation, is the practice of placing tons of roofing materials over
the heads of children, on roofs in need of repair, facing a winter season of
possible hundreds of centimeters of snow accumulation. I ask: Is this the
accepted practice of this government, of those departments? Who, pray tell, is
looking after the interests of our children?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate if the member opposite has a very
serious concern here, but I have to say to him that I am not in the roofing
business. I do not know what tonnage would be too much to put on any particular
roof, but I can assure the member opposite that if there is an issue there, we
will certainly look at it. I am assuming this is not the first time it has come
to his attention, since it has been there for awhile. I am wondering whether or
not he has reported it, had somebody out to look at it. It sounds like he has an
issue here that he really should have brought to someone's attention before
now if it is such a serious, serious issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On December 4, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation tabled
information regarding extra costs to accommodate the Apollo on the St.
Barbe/Blanc Sablon ferry route. He is now saying that the $1.7 million spent on
renovations and extension to the dock was due to a fire in 1997 and the ongoing
problems of loading and unloading vehicles with long wheel bases, like tractor
trailers or buses.
Mr. Speaker, why did Works, Services and Transportation ignore warnings from
Transport Canada that the Apollo, at 109 metres, was much too long for
safe docking, and award the contract to a Liberal connected company, knowing
full well that extra costs would incur to the people of the Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am sorry that the hon. member is so disappointed in the fact that the
government did such a great job in awarding the tender for the St. Barbe ferry
service, the great service that has been provided to the people of Labrador. As
a matter of fact, our numbers are up by 40 per cent this year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: As a matter of fact, stay tuned because we are going to be
making great improvements to the marine services in Labrador over the next two
or three months. I can't wait to be able to give the people of Labrador the
services that they desire. If it means that we have to provide docking services,
wharves and everything in Labrador, this government is committed to providing a
great service for the people of Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister, we, on this side of the House, support proper ferry
service in Labrador and all over the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: But, Mr. Speaker, he should be taking the recommendations
of the people who told him that he should not have awarded that contract.
Mr. Speaker, sources tell me that $1.4 million of the $1.7 million was
related to extra work done to accommodate the Apolla . Won't the minster
now admit he is misleading the people by what he is now saying regarding the
extra costs, and that the extra $1.4 million was because government ignored
Transport Canada, playing around with the Public Tender Act once again, and the
people of the Province are now paying $1.4 million for your mistakes?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind the hon. member that there was no playing around with the Public
Tender Act. The wharf repairs in the St. Barbe District was publicly tendered,
is in progress and I know that the hon. Member for St. Barbe is quite pleased
with what is happening in his district, and the amount of work that is being
created.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: As a matter of fact, the fact that we have a first class
ferry service between St. Barbe and, hopefully, in the future probably the
Straits of Labrador somewhere, rather than Blanc Sablon, then we are very, very
pleased with that. I do not know what he is complaining about. The Public Tender
Act was followed completely with the St. Barbe wharf repairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that the specifications to the
Private Tender Act were changed nine days before the tender was awarded. He has
to admit, because the tender was changed, the vessel went from 85 meters to 109
meters which Transport Canada recommended they not accept. Again, why did this
government award a contract -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The vessel, itself, is over capacity. It is only half full. Mr. Speaker, will
the minister admit that his mistakes cost the people of this Province $1.4
million that did not need to be spent when they could have had a first class
service without spending that $1.4 million?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not know where the hon. member is living. I do not know if he is living
in the real world or not because, as a critic, I think he should travel
Newfoundland and Labrador a little bit and find out what is happening out there
in the real world. As a matter of fact, the capacity on that boat this year, we
have had such a tremendous number of interests, and people moving into Labrador
and out of Labrador, that we had to leave cars and vehicles on the wharves
because the boat is not big enough right now. We are probably going to have to
open another deck on the boat next summer because the traffic is that heavy
going across the Strait of Belle Isle, and we are so pleased with this ferry, it
is not even funny.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. BARRETT: I mean the sky is falling in, I guess. Every time this hon.
member gets up he talks about doom and gloom.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. BARRETT: Why doesn't he go out and see what is happening in rural
Newfoundland and Labrador because this government is very committed to rural
Newfoundland and Labrador, and to the isolated parts of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am tabling today answers to a question from the Member for Ferryland, our
analysis of the provincial personal income tax.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Motion 5, first reading of Bill 63, to ask leave
to introduce a bill,
An Act To Amend The Limitations Act.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a
bill, "An Act To Amend The Limitations Act," carried. (Bill 63)
On motion, Bill 63 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Motion 4, first reading of Bill 58,
An Act To Establish The
Boxing Authority Of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to introduce
a bill, "An Act To Establish The Boxing Authority Of Newfoundland and
Labrador," carried. (Bill 58)
On motion, Bill 58 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: First reading of Bill 60,
An Act To Amend The Economic
Diversification And Growth Enterprises Act.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Economic Diversification And Growth
Enterprises Act," carried. (Bill 60)
On motion, Bill 60 read a first time, ordered read a second on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Order 9, Bill 29, and a series of other
bills. Once we are in the Committee of the Whole, it is Order 9, Bill 21.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR: Order, please!
Bill 21,
An Act To Amend The Teacher Training Act.
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on this particular bill, An
Act To Amend The Teacher Training Act. As I said before, it seems to me to be
housekeeping but there are some changes there and I feel it necessary to go
through. I refer back to some of the concerns that I brought forward the last
day, Mr. Chairman, concerning teacher certification in general.
In looking at teacher certification, it is most important that the process of
teacher certification be a process whereby it is open, where teachers can be
attracted to the profession, that they can be certified without too much
difficulty; not only teachers within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
but outside the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as well. It is indeed
very, very important that we ensure that this bill moving forward will allow for
a continuous supply of quality teachers to continue on from those who may be
moving out of the profession, for those who may be retiring or for whatever
reason leaving their particular position.
This bill calls for the certification review panel which will take over from
the Teachers' Certification Committee the job that they were doing before in,
I suppose, reviewing the certification of teachers. It will be their job to look
at whether they would suspend a teacher, whether they would cancel the
certificate or licence of a teacher who is guilty of gross misconduct,
incompetence, or for other just cause. It is such an important situation that
may arise, Mr. Chairman, with regard to teacher certification. There are
teachers out there now who have varying years of experience but most importantly
we are, at this present time, in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, at
a crucial stage in teacher supply. Even though it appears that there are enough
teachers, the question arises as to whether or not there are enough qualified
teachers to take care of the demand for, I suppose, certified teachers.
With this in mind, there has to be some body responsible, and I would assume
it is the Department of Education who would be responsible for keeping attuned
to what is happening in the Province, Mr. Chairman, with regard to teacher
supply, teacher demand. It is most important that the Minister of the Department
of Education certainly be ahead of any supply or demand situations. The red
flags have gone up with regard to teacher supply and demand, and I say they have
gone up, Mr. Chairman, because, with regard to teacher supply and demand, it
varies with regard to the part of the Province that we are talking about. It
varies with regard to the type of teacher that one might be looking for. It
varies with regard to population.
There is a whole set of variables that will determine the supply and the
demand for teachers in any particular year, certainly in any particular period
of time. Now in 1998, Dr. Crocker did a report and clearly indicated that there
would be some difficulties as the 1990s, I guess, phased out and we entered into
the new century. It wasn't with regard to numbers, as much as it was with
regard to quality of teachers, specialist teachers and so on and so forth.
As we move now past the turn of the century, into 2001 and on into 2002, we
are finding that there are going to be difficulties in filling positions in this
Province as early as September of 2002, but in particular that there are
problems, even as we speak, in getting teachers into certain positions. That is
why it is so important that when we bring about changes in the Teacher Training
Act, especially with regard to certification, it is most important that we keep
in mind the demands that are going to be placed upon the teaching certification
in the years to come.
Now, as was mentioned to you before, Mr. Chairman, there are some flags that
have been raised, and we see now, in some parts of Newfoundland and Labrador,
that it is impossible to find substitute teachers, teachers who have been
certified, willing to go in and take over from a teacher who, for whatever
reason, is off from teaching, be it because of sickness, because of leave or
whatever the case might be. We are finding, on a daily basis, and long-term
basis, that it is getting increasingly difficult, throughout all of this
Province, to find substitutes who can readily fill in on a daily basis or
whatever.
A second flag that has gone up deals with, I guess, the emergency supply.
Because there are no substitute teachers to be found on a daily basis, school
boards and administrators have been forced to depend upon emergency supply. Now,
this gets to be a tricky situation because when you are looking at emergency
supply, there is provision that really all you need in order to be certified to
go in and substitute as an emergency supply is a letter that shows you are in
good character and good standing. So, there are no qualifications looked at. It
is simply whether or not you are of a character that you don't have a criminal
record, I suppose, any kind of a record. So anyone, literally, a high school
graduate, could be in the classrooms of this Province filling in on a daily
basis, a weekly basis, and maybe even longer, simply because the substitute
teachers cannot be gotten to go in there.
The other situation - again it deals with certification - is that this year,
as well, there have been changes brought about in the certification of teachers
to allow for emergency supplies, especially in isolated area. How this works is
that teachers are being certified without any teacher training. The teacher
training is not there, except that they happen to be in the general area of a
position that has been offered, that cannot be filled, and if they have certain
years of university, maybe a degree, maybe some courses - but again not
necessarily any teacher training - they can get certification for up until a
year, on a yearly basis, because they cannot fill that position with a qualified
teacher.
I cannot stress, Mr. Chairman, how important it is that we be very, very
careful - when I say we, of course, I refer to the department, to the minister -
that we don't find ourselves in this Province in a situation where we have not
protected the supply of teachers, quality teachers, in this Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Apart from that, Mr. Chairman, there are demands that have placed from
outside this Province on our teaching force, on our graduates. You say: Well,
there should be enough graduates coming out of post-secondary to be able to fill
the shoes of retiring teachers or teachers who are leaving their positions to go
elsewhere. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, that is not the case. In the 1980s, and
indeed in the 1990s, there was an oversupply of teachers in this Province;
however, these teachers could not secure any type of commitment as to whether or
not they could get employment in Newfoundland and Labrador, not necessarily
during the year that they graduated, but in the years to follow.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?
MR. HEDDERSON: That is quite alright. I can get up at another time.
Thank you.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I certainly want to rise today just to spend a few minutes on this particular
Bill 21, just to echo some of the words of my colleague who talked about the
supply of teachers in the Province, and to basically talk about teaching in
general in this Province. Being a former teacher, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you
that you have to experience the profession to really know what it is all about.
I guess it is the same in politics, or if you are a police officer, or whatever
your profession. It gives you that inside experience to look at from the other
side.
Certainly today in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is what
I want to speak about today in particular, especially years ago, as new teachers
came into a particular community, they became the leaders in that particular
community. They were on councils, they were on organizational groups and they
were a big part of small-town Newfoundland.
Mr. Chairman, when my colleague talks about the continuous supply, it is
something that we all should be very concerned about. The fact is, in some of
the rural communities these days, it is hard to get a substitute teacher. I do
not know how often that happens, maybe the minister will talk later about it,
because it is a concern. In some of these smaller communities especially, there
are situations arising where, if there is no substitute teacher and there is
just too much demand on the staff that are there, that, in fact, students may
even have to be sent home or doubled up in classes. There are all kinds of
circumstances which arise.
The member also mentioned about Ontario and the demand there. Mr. Chairman,
as we get graduates coming through our system here in Newfoundland and Labrador,
there certainly is a demand. As a matter of fact, some ten years ago I was in
that particular situation. Before I entered politics, I was looking at a job in
Oshawa, Ontario. As a matter of fact, it was within days of deciding to go to
Oshawa, Ontario, to teach, where a friend of mine was already teaching. There
were lots of jobs there, no problem to get work up there as a teacher. Luckily
for me, I should say, within days of that decision I was offered a job in Baie
Verte. Mr. Chairman, I happened to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador and I am
glad I did, and I hope I continue to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I just want to remind my colleagues that Jean Charest, one time here in
Newfoundland some years ago, gave a speech here in this Province and he referred
to the teaching profession. He said: It has to remain a proud profession and the
morale has to stay high because, don't forget, as he explained, when you take
your kindergarten little boy or little girl to school for the first time, and
you pass his or her hand, lots of times crying at that stage, you pass it on to
a teacher, that teacher and the teachers within that system are probably going
to spend more time with your child than you have a chance to, especially these
days where you have two people in the family working and so on.
Mr. Chairman, if we are entrusting that responsibility of our children, with
that profession, with that teacher whom you passed that hand to, then the morale
of that profession has to be high. When the morale is high, I say to the
minister, the teachers perform their best. They are interested, they are
enthused and so on.
When the system is strained, and it is strained today, Mr. Chairman -
especially some years ago, we all know that, when the reform was continuing, as
things started to fall in place, and we hope that it gets better. It is
certainly not up to where we want it so far, but as the system gets better
hopefully we will see the morale improve and we will see teachers with
enthusiasm and vigor again so that when they walk into a classroom at 9:00 o'clock
on a Monday morning, after a weekend, and you have twenty-five, thirty,
thirty-five students facing you, you have to motivate yourself. You have to be
interested in that job. That is when you perform the best. Not unlike any other
profession.
Mr. Chair, I would like, at some other time, get up and talk specifically
about physical education and teachers. I really would like to talk about that
because I was a physical education teacher. It is interesting to note that in
the latest talks that the Minister of Health had around the Province - and I am
glad to hear this, minister, and I am going to spend some time later talking
about it - that it is so important, especially as we see the strains on health
care these days, that children from kindergarten throughout their entire school
life know the benefits of being healthy and what physical education is all
about.
I attended the conference for phys ed teachers just a couple of weeks ago,
Mr. Chair, and talked to a lot of teachers who are still in the profession, a
lot of people I knew who went through university. We hope that this continues,
and in fact, that the government will put more emphasis on physical education in
the school program because that is where you start. When a kindergartner enters
school and throughout his life, if he is involved in physical education - and I
do not mean just the sports. I mean in knowing the health of the body, knowing
about good practices to remain healthy. That is what physical education is all
about. That is why it is more important than ever, especially today.
I say to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education, that those two
elements are brought together; that we provide an education. What that does, in
the long run, if we educate our children in school on how important it is to be
healthy, in the long term our health system improves, because simply put, they
learn how important it is to remain healthy.
I know there is not enough time in Committee now, Mr. Chair, but spend
another time, a longer period of time speaking specifically about how important
physical education is to our children. I agree with the minister, if we want to
look at prevention in health care they should learn in elementary school, in
high school, so that they will go on in life to become healthy members of
society and be less of a strain on our health care system.
Thank you for your time, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal-Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to say a few words at Committee stage on Bill 21, the Teacher
Training Act. I listened carefully to the last speaker, the Member for Baie
Verte, and his comments, particularly about the issue of physical education. I
know that is something that is perhaps neglected in our schools. In fact, not
only perhaps, I think it is neglected, given its importance to the physical and,
I would add, mental health and well being of all of our school children,
particularly given the fact that the habits of school children these days are
very much different than they were many years ago. Children do not walk miles to
school everyday. In fact, they do not walk very far at all to school every day.
They do not do the kind of physical activity that was done a generation ago.
Many of them spend too much time watching television and doing other sedentary
activities. Any parent knows how hard it is to drag kids away from a TV set from
time to time. So physical education in our schools has taken on a much more
significant and important role.
We know, for example, from the statistics on a child's weight as opposed to
height, the obesity issue for children in our country is becoming a very serious
problem as it causes a whole series of issues for children as they are older and
as they become adults. It is something that is a significant problem,
particularly in North America as a whole, and in particular in this Province. I
know the Minister of Health has made reference to that on a number of occasions.
In fact, during the health forums held throughout the Province, and including
the one at Gander last week, the statistics for this Province has been one of
the highest rates of childhood obesity in the country. I think that is something
that needs to be addressed in our health care system, but the best place to
address it, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, would be in our school system where
children spend a significant period of time during the week, and where they
learn life habits; where they learn habits of life and the importance of
exercise and physical activity. The importance of good nourishment should be a
part of our school system and it is not. We do not have a national nutrition
program or even a provincial nutrition program that is mandated in our schools.
We have, woefully, inadequate time devoted to physical education as a whole.
I want to take another moment, Mr. Chairman, to reiterate a couple of the
questions that I had for the minister the other day when I spoke at second
reading, which the minister did not get a chance to respond to but said that she
would be happy to deal with at the Committee stage. Now that we are here I will
repeat those concerns on teacher training. They have to do with, first of all:
What mechanisms are in place to ensure that people who have teacher
certificates, who are teaching in our schools, who are reported to have been
guilty of abusing children - whether sexually, physically, or emotionally -
whether there is a mechanism in place to ensure that any reports of this type of
activity do in fact get to the board that is given the responsibility of dealing
with discipline matters and the revocation of certificates?
What provisions are in place nationally - so that someone who is either
convicted or in some cases not convicted but may have their teaching certificate
removed in this Province as a result of a report of a hearing - to ensure that
that same person cannot go to Nova Scotia, British Columbia, or the Yukon and
teach in a school system there? That is something that has happened within this
Province - going from one school board to another, or even within school boards
- by teachers who have been reported. I am not saying that anybody about whom a
report is made is sufficient to deny a certificate but who have been reported
and have been found to be guilty of - either in a board hearing, or through a
court - abusing children, that that person be denied the opportunity to teach in
another school in this Province or in this country. Not only that, similarly,
whether someone has been convicted or have their license deprived in another
province or territory, what provision is in place to ensure that these
individuals do not get to teach here in this Province?
As I said the other day, I am not just talking about the incidents that have
received so much publicity involving Christian Brothers in this Province, where
we have had examples of people teaching in schools in this Province being
charged with offences and going to other provinces and teaching, but we have
also had people who have not been involved in the religious orders, lay people
in other denominations and in other school boards. It is a broader issue than
the issue involving the Christian Brothers of Ireland. It is an issue involving
all teachers and it is an issue involving the protection of our school children
so that they are not to be exposed in the school to people who have a history of
abusing children, either physically or sexually, and have had their license
removed.
The two questions, essentially, are what provisions are made to ensure that
there is a requirement for principals or vice-principals to report to the
Teacher Certification Board, incidents of abuse of children? Is there a
provision in place? What is it? Where is it? What provision is there to ensure
that other provinces and other territories, who have similar Teacher
Certification Boards, to make sure that they know what happened here and that we
know what happened there? If the minister could answer those I would be very
pleased to hear her answers.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The amendment that we are speaking to is very much a housekeeping item, as I
referenced when I first stood up to speak to this, and I think members opposite
recognize that. But, there have been some important points raised in the debate
about this amendment that I think deserve some comment. I say that because I
think they have raised some very valid points and some very valid concerns out
around the Province.
I would like to take this opportunity to ensure them that steps are being
taken to deal with some of the issues that they have raised, certainly in the
terms of the teacher supply and demand. We have put in place what we call a
provincial advisory committee on teacher supply and demand, and the
representation on that committee, in fact, is comprised from the university,
from the NLTA, from school districts, from school boards, and from the
Department of Education, to look at the issue to try and determine where we can
make whatever effort we can to try and ensure that we will have a sufficient
number of teachers in the system to respond to the needs out there.
One of the things that we have asked the university to do, of course, is to
work with us in terms of looking at the number of graduates they have, or
whether or not they have sufficient numbers of graduates, and where they come
from, and what area of expertise they are trained in. We found that we have more
than enough when it comes to the primary and elementary teachers. The areas
where we do have some problems, you will find, is in physics, math, special
education, and a couple of other areas. So, what we have asked the university to
do is to work with us, with the Faculty of Education, to, in fact, look at other
faculties and see if we cannot direct students into the Faculty of Education
from maybe the Faculty of Science, from the Faculty of Arts, and from other
faculties, to have them put on some kind of campaign to encourage others to go
into the teaching profession, which is a very laudable profession, and one we
would like to see a bigger emphasis placed on in the Province.
So we have that provincial advisory group in place to deal with the fact that
we do have areas in the Province where we are seeing some shortages. We are, by
no means, in a crisis situation, Mr. Chairman. What we are finding is something
that is happening right across the country, in fact. No matter where you go in
this country, in any province in this country, you will find that they have
difficulty recruiting teachers in those specialty areas. So this is not
something new, it is not something different. This is something that has been
with us for quite some time.
I guess the issue now is that you will find other provinces rating our
Province to try and attract, because we do have one of the highest qualified
teaching forces in the country. I am very pleased to say that. In fact, most of
our teachers have more than one degree and, of course, that means they have at
least four years of university and, in some cases, many more. A lot of our
teachers coming out of the Faculty of Education today, in fact, have two
degrees. So we have a very qualified teaching force in the Province, and a force
that is very attractive to other provinces when they look to recruit.
I take the points raised by the members opposite, that it is in our best
interest to try and keep those teachers here and to ensure that they have the
supports that they need, which is why, as I mentioned earlier, I am very proud
of this government. In fact, we have put more money into the education system
than any government before us, and we will continue with that level of support.
In fact, if you look at what we do put into the system, Mr. Chairman, you are
looking at, based on our ability to pay, more money into the system per student
than any other province in the country. In fact, if you look at the past four
years, we have seen an increase of 16 per cent in terms of the allocation per
student to our school boards. We have gone from $5,500 just four years ago, up
to about $6,500 today. That is an increase of a little over 16 per cent.
We are, in fact, putting the resources into the system to support our
teachers and to ensure that our students have a quality education; in fact, an
education second to none. We are very proud of our record in that respect.
Yes, we do have to work very diligently to ensure that we have the qualified
teaching force in the Province. As I say, we have a very highly trained teaching
force, and we are very proud of that, but there are areas of the Province where
we are seeing some shortages, and those are the areas that we must focus on. We
have taken a number of measures already.
In addition to the provincial advisory board that we put in place to try and
deal with the issue of teacher supply and demand, we have also, in the past
little while, and the members opposite will be familiar with this, put a $5,000
bonus in place for teachers who would take positions along the Coast of
Labrador. This government did that, and I am very, very proud of that, as a way
again of attracting teachers to Coastal Labrador. That has been very fortunate
for us in terms of the number of teachers we have been able to attract as a
result of that bonus being put in place.
There are a number of other things that we continue to do to try and deal
with this issue. We do not want to see a crisis situation in this Province, and
we have no intention of letting it become a crisis situation, Mr. Chairman.
In fact, as the member opposite suggested, we have also changed our
regulations so that we can hired people are not teachers, those who have
university degrees, who may be in a community, whose husband or wife may be a
teacher, and who may be there with a university degree, not necessarily a
teaching degree, but certainly there with academic qualifications and a teaching
degree to enable them to go into the teaching force as well.
Normally when we have an emergency supply, what would happen is that these
people would maybe have Grade 12, and they would be paid maybe about $10,000
while they were there teaching for the period of time; I guess about $10,000 a
year.
What we have done is, we have increased the salary, not for anyone with a
Grade 12, but if you have a university degree, in fact, we have increased the
salary so that person would be at level three making about $27,000 a year, so
that is a substantial increase. That means that boards can in fact have access
to people with more qualifications and be able to pay them accordingly. That has
worked out very well. In fact, in Labrador we have seen an additional five
teachers hired as a result of that initiative, so that has worked very well.
There are other things that we are going to be doing as well. In fact, I ask
the hon. members to stay tuned because we will be announcing another initiative
in the not-too-distant future in terms of measures that are being taken to
ensure that we have qualified teachers in the education system.
Again, to repeat, we have, in fact, the most highly qualified teaching force
in the country but there are areas where we have shortages, and again I repeat
that it is no different than anywhere else in the rest of the country. I am very
proud of the initiatives we have taken. We will continue to work with the
university, and I have to say that the university has come to the table; they
want to work with us. They recognize that there is an issue here that has to be
addressed and they are very determined to work with us to see that we do not end
up in a situation were we do not have the required number of teachers in our
Province, if there is anything we can do to avoid that happening.
I recognize that the concerns raised by the members opposite are valid
concerns, not to the extent to say that we have a crisis situation, Mr.
Chairman, but certainly to the extent that there are students out there who are
probably not able to avail of a qualified teacher at this point in time, and one
that we are working on to address, and we will continue to do. I think the
measures that we have put in place show that we are sincere about addressing
those issues.
With respect to physical education, you are speaking to the converted. I
recognize that this is a very important part of our curriculum, one that we
really need to continue to focus on, and certainly, having listened to my
colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, in terms of findings
about children in our system today, it is certainly something that we should
give as much attention to as we possibly can. She and I will be working very
closely at looking at the situation in which we find ourselves with our young
people in the Province, and seeing how best to address that, but I do recognize
that physical education is certainly a course that right now is being offered in
our school system. It is not compulsory when you get to the high school level,
but I think it is certainly something that we need to look seriously at. We are
going to be doing that, and that is something that I have been thinking about
for quite some time.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS FOOTE: Absolutely. Physical education is one, I think, where, if we
are going to talk prevention verses maintenance, and talk about our health care
system, that is certainly one. Of course, a healthy population will make all the
difference in the world.
The question with respect to what happens if a teacher moves to this Province
or a teacher from this Province moves to another province and has been accused
of something, what I can tell you there is that, in fact, when a person holds a
teaching certificate in one province and applies for a teaching certificate in
another province, the receiving province requires the person to provide a
professional statement from the province which has issued the existing
certificate. This, of course, would confirm the existing certificate is valid
and has not been suspended or cancelled. There are safety measures there so that
if you are going from one province to another, that if that province has issued
a valid certificate which every province will require, then you can be
guaranteed that certificate is given and that there is no case there where
anyone has been suspended or had their certificate cancelled for whatever
reason.
Generally, of course, the receiving province also requires the applicant to
certify that he or she has not been convicted of a crime against a person or is
not under investigation for any such crime. So there are measures in place in
the system to ensure that if a teacher has been suspended or had their
certificate cancelled for any reason, that a receiving province will be aware of
that. That is not a concern for us. We think the measures are there to ensure
that if a teacher has been convicted, that he or she will not get a job in
another province unbeknownst to the receiving province.
With that, Mr. Chair, those are my comments with respect to the amendment to
this bill. Again, it is essentially a housekeeping bill. One that will ensure
that the panel will be able to carry out the work for which they would have done
the research anyway, and that they will then be able to act on that
recommendation.
Thank you.
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teacher Training Act." (Bill 21)
On motion, clauses 1 through 7 carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,
carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 10, Mr. Chairman, Bill 22,
An Act To Amend The Forestry
Act.
CHAIR: Bill 22,
An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is an opportunity again to ask questions on the specific clause of
debate, not for general debate. In that spirit I have a couple of questions for
the minister. Our critic today is in his own district, unavoidably absent, so in
his place I have conferred with him on some of the issues that we wanted to ask
the minister about.
In clause 1, it reads: "the Bill would amend paragraph 23(
b) of the
Forestry Act to permit the minister rather than the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council to enter into timber sale agreements."
Essentially, what that means is that the minister can go ahead now without
going before the entire Cabinet. It gives whoever the minister may be, at any
point in time, the authority to do exactly that.
I wonder if the minister could elaborate on what the rationale was for giving
the minister that sort of discretion without having a full discussion and debate
at Cabinet, understanding how important the forestry industry is? Secondly, when
we are talking about entering into timber sale agreements these agreements would
have long reaching impacts on the industry and the potential economic
development of the industry that it offers to the regions of the Province that
depend so heavily upon the forestry industry.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment and the
Acting Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The intent of this amendment is to facilitate the process. It has become
apparent that in recent years - there are a couple of instances here that
references giving the minister the authority as opposed to having the matter
dealt with entirely by Cabinet. It is really just a matter of facilitating the
process from the point of view that going the other route causes unnecessary
delays. Sometimes it takes a good while to get these matters before Cabinet for
approval.
For example, there was a situation whereby - especially as it relates to the
awarding of a certificate - there actually was a court case where a question was
raised with regards to the fact that the timber was being transported without
the proper authorization. The courts actually asked why it was. The simple
reason was, that there was just a delay in getting the thing through the system.
It is really just a matter of facilitating the process and certainly not
intended in any way to circumvent that broader process. Safeguards are in place.
The hon. member is concerned that, in any way, this would negatively impact on
the management of the industry as such. That is certainly not the intention here
and that would not happen.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The minister touched on the second area in terms of the checks and balances,
and you called them safeguards. You are convinced, I guess, and I would ask you
to elaborate if you could, enshrining that much power to the minister - and you
have indicated that the reason that the change is there from Cabinet to the
minister is so that it would enable government to facilitate the management of
the industry in a more expeditious way. Would that be correct? Is that what you
are saying?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
MR. E. BYRNE: The intent is not to enshrine all power to the minister,
who would have to brief Cabinet anyway, I understand. Is that what -
MR. SMITH: Exactly. Precisely.
MR. E. BYRNE: If you could speak to the safeguards, or the checks and
balances just for a moment, and elaborate on the issue that you raised yourself,
I would certainly appreciate it.
CHAIR: The Acting Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, this relates to instances where approval is given to enter into these
arrangements, and for the transportation and that sort of thing.
As I mentioned to the hon. member, there was an instance a short time ago -
and I cannot get into a lot of detail on it - where the courts actually
referenced the fact that they had some difficulty with the fact that we had the
product being transported, the proper certification was not there, and the
courts did point out, rightly so, that really none of this should have happened.
The reason for the delay wasn't that there was a problem - but again, the way
the system is now with the number of matters that go to Cabinet, it is just a
matter of getting it on the Cabinet agenda, getting it dealt with, even when it
is only routine matters.
As the hon. member rightly pointed out, obviously the minister sits as a part
of Cabinet, and the decisions are still the decisions of Cabinet. I guess any
minister, whether it is this minister or any subsequent minister acting in that
capacity, would be held to account as to what is happening at that particular
department. I do not think there would be an any difficulties arising as a
result of it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am just going to ask one more question. It deals with another clause. I
know it may be a bit unorthodox but then my questions can be concluded with that
and we can move ahead to pass the various amendments suggested by the minister.
It deals with clause 6 of the bill: "Clause 6 of the Bill would repeal and
replace paragraph 83(
a) of the Act to provide for quarterly rather than annual
reporting of sawmill licensee returns." A small issue but an important
issue for those who are involved in the industry, and one that I agree with. I
wonder if you just could elaborate or provide a greater explanation on why the
department saw the need to do this, and what will be the impacts, either pro or
con, as a result of doing this?
CHAIR: The Acting Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, this particular amendment is intended to streamline the process. I
guess it ties in with our overall concern for management of the forest resource.
We recognize, and certainly all hon. Members of this House would be well aware
that the resource, at the present time within the Province, is under some
strain. We are trying to deal with the competing demands from the sawmill
industry and from our paper mills. Part and parcel to all of that, we want to
try to ensure that the resource that we do have available is being properly
used. We think that requiring the sawmills to report on a quarterly, as opposed
to an annual basis, will provide for closer inspection as to what is happening
there to ensure that the companies are in compliance with the guidelines that
are set down, and overall make for a better operation. I would point out to the
hon. member, my understanding is that this is with the agreement of the
industry, that they do not have any great difficulties with this particular
change.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to say a few remarks on Bill 22. It is in connection with the
same clause referred to by the previous speaker in dealing with the certificates
of managed land. I raised at second reading the issue here where we seem to be
making it easier to get a certificate of managed land but still the process,
when it comes to the minister coming to the conclusion, that in fact the land is
not being managed in accordance with the plan or managed properly. The minister
has no authority to cancel the certification without going to the Cabinet. It
seems to me that it is just as important to have the authority of the minister
to cancel a certificate in a timely fashion as it would be to grant the
certificate in a timely fashion.
If the problems that the minister has mentioned are problems with respect to
giving a grant of authority to a licence holder or an operator to go ahead and
operate under a Certificate of Managed Land, if that is such a cumbersome
process to get the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, well surely
the opposite must be true as well if the minister or the minister's officials
find a situation where the land is not being managed, that the minister does not
seem to have the power, without having to go to Cabinet, to revoke that
certification. I want to know why the minister is doing that. Why would that be
a less important activity than the other way around? I say this in a context,
obviously, where we have a forest industry that is important to our Province.
The history of the management of land in this Province has been a negative
one, I say to the minister. It has not been one where we have had - we had to
bring in this legislation twenty-five years ago in order to get proper
management or try to get proper management of our forest lands. In fact the
minister himself, the actual minister - the minister is the acting minister, the
actual minister - in September, clearly indicated that the forests were not
being managed properly because, if they were, he would not be saying that there
was a reduction or to be a reduction in the Annual Allowable Cut of about 10 per
cent to 25 per cent because there was not sufficient reforestation going on.
I say to the minister, the issue of proper management of our land, the issue
of proper restocking of our forests, the issue of reforestation and proper
management is just as important and significant to the future of our forest
industry as to have a timely procedure for the issuing of Certificates of
Managed Land, which has the effect of giving the owners of the land a break from
taxes.
Surely, I say to the minister, the necessity of getting a certificate in
place is important, but surely equally, and perhaps more important, is to have
the minister to be able to revoke such a certificate, if a necessity arises, in
just as timely a fashion. Would the minister respond to that?
CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The hon. member should be aware that in terms of the actual management of the
forest lands at the present time, that the companies concerned would have to be
required to offer to present, on an annual basis, a plan of operation as to how
they propose to proceed with the harvesting in their particular area. Subsequent
to that, officials from the department would go into the area to determine
whether, in fact, the guidelines as they are set down within the operating plan
are being adhered to; if, in fact, the company is delivering or in compliance of
what they set out to do in the original plan. On the basis of that, the
determination will then be made as to whether or not the minister will issue a
Certificate of Managed Land. Part of it could be determined to be managed or the
whole thing could be determined to be unmanaged. The catch is, I guess, in terms
of the control that the department has. The department will then determine the
taxation rate based on that, and the company will automatically be placed in a
higher taxation rate if, in fact, it is determined to be unmanaged or only
partially managed.
Those are where the controls are. I would also remind the hon. member that
this happens on an annual basis so it is not a long-term commitment in that
point of view. I think it would be kind of difficult if the hon. member is
suggesting that as soon as we have that, that automatically the permit would be
cancelled, I am sure he would recognize that would cause some severe
difficulties all around.
Keeping in mind that it is on an annual basis, and again it is part and
parcel of the efforts of government to try to improve on the management of our
forest resources, I think we all acknowledge it within this hon. House, and
certainly anybody who has had any direct exposure to what has been happening in
the forest lands in recent years, I think you will notice that there is some
improvement. We are making some gains. We do recognize that in the past there
had been some serious problems, but I think with amendments of this nature like
we are seeing here today, it will move us further along in terms of improving on
our proper management of the resources on behalf of the people of the Province.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The minister talks about improving the circumstances. Certainly it is
improving the ability or the speed at which a Certificate of Managed Land can be
issued. That does not seem to have been the problem.
The problem has been, we have had the land management tax system in place for
twenty-five years now and we still are seeing the actual minister having to make
a statement that we might see the Annual Allowable Cut reduced by 10 per cent to
25 per cent because management is not taking place. It seems to me that the
minister ought to be bringing in measures to make more enforceability, a higher
degree of enforceability, to achieve a higher degree of compliance with the
requirements of having properly managed lands.
I understand that on a day-to-day basis the system has to be able to operate,
but if you look at clause 5 of the bill, on page 4, the last sentence in terms
of dealing with the fact that a holder is not managing the land, the last line
says, "...the minister may..." - the next words are - "...with
the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, (
a) cancel the
certificate...". So, the minister is given the authority to grant the
certificate but the minister cannot take it away.
My point is, Mr. Chairman, the very obvious, if it is so important to have
the minister have control over what is going on in the forest, and whether they
are managing the lands properly or not, why is the minister given the authority
by him or herself to go ahead and issue a certificate, but when it comes to
cancelling it or revoking it or making a declaration that it is unmanaged, why
does the minister have to go to the Cabinet? Why is that extra step there if the
minister is going to have control over ensuring that the land is properly
managed? That seems to me, Mr. Chairman, to be making it easier to grant the
certificate than to take it away because, although it is an awful lot of trouble
to get the - it takes time, it has to make its Cabinet submission and all kinds
of documentation, not only will the Minister of Forestry have a say in it but
the Minister of Fisheries will have a say in it, the Minister of Justice will
have a say in it, and the Minister of Government Services and Lands will have a
say in it, and every other minister sitting around the Cabinet will have a say
in it because it requires the approval of the Cabinet to revoke a certificate
but the minister can go issue a certificate without getting any approval at all.
That is the question that I am raising here. If our concern is, and it
certainly seems to be, that the forest lands in this Province are not being
managed to a point of sustainability because we do not have sustainability right
now, then why are we making it easier to grant Certificates of Managed Lands
then we are to take them away? That is an important point that the minister
should address.
CHAIR: The Acting Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman
Just to point out to the hon. member, I listened to his line of reasoning and
I find it rather strange. I am sure that if today this piece of legislation
where indicating that the minister would indeed have that authority, I would
suspect that the hon. member would be on his feet questioning why that kind of
authority is being given to the minister.
As I pointed out to the hon. member, what we are talking about here does take
place on an annual basis. I think, in terms of management, yes, we all subscribe
to the idea that we do have to properly manage our resource, but we also have to
acknowledge, as I am sure the hon. member would, that you cannot micromanage to
the point that you are going to be down on a daily basis dealing with these
sorts of things. The best that we can do is bring in guidelines to try to
protect and direct development within the Province. We try to ensure that people
who are working within the industry are in adherence and compliance of these
regulations. Where they are not, then we provide the mechanism whereby we can
deal with those instances of non-compliance.
What is being proposed here today, I submit, will facilitate the process. It
will improve the present situation. It is something that the industry has been
asking for. At the same time, I do not concede or subscribe to the argument
being put forward by the hon. member that by doing what we are proposing to do
here today, that we will in fact reduce what we are doing in terms of protecting
this resource on behalf of the people of the Province.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill- Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, the minister is suggesting that this hon.
member wants to micromanage the forest industry. What I am saying is not that at
all. The minister is the one who says that when they put their certificates in
place he sends his officials out to see whether they are complying with the act
or not. The point is not whether he is seeing whether they are complying with
the act or not; the point is, what do you do when you find out that they are
not? Sure, the industry wants it easier to get Certificates of Managed Lands. Of
course, the industry is asking for this amendment because they want to make it
easier to get Certificates of Managed Land. They are not asking for the minister
to have the approval to cancel them. They do not want the minister to have the
approval to cancel them. They want it to be more trouble, presumably, for the
minister to cancel them because it is more difficult to get the Cabinet to go
along with cancelling a - or more time consuming. It may be more elaborate. It
may take more effort to get the Cabinet to cancel a certificate of managed land
than it would be to get the minister to do it. If the minister was doing his or
her job, the minister would be in a position to cancel a certificate if their
officials were telling them that they are not compiling with the management
plan, that they are not compiling with the certificate that was granted. They
are doing it, as the minister says, on an annual basis.
If the minister says we are not going to micromanage - well you are asking
for an annual report for starters, but it is a report that the minister has the
authority to approve or disapprove. We have seen already in this House, in this
session, where the Minister of Environment, for example, has a five year
operating plan which is supposed to tabled 180 days prior to the start of the
plan of being submitted within ninety days of the start and the minister gives a
waiver under another provision of the regulation. The minister has lots of
discretion when it comes to assisting a company in getting approval for things
but it appears that the legislation does not give the minister much discretion
when it comes to acting when they are not going along with the plans that have
been approved and the certificates that have been this issued.
I want the minister to answer this particular question: Why is there more
discretion in the minister to grant a certificate than it is to revoke a
certificate where they are not compiling with the management plans that they put
in place? That is the issue. Of course, the industry is not asking for that.
This should not be industry-driven legislation. This should be legislation to
protect and guarantee the forest resources and their sustainability for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the point of having legislation in
the first place, not doing what the industry requests, unless it is in the best
interest of the people of the Province. If it is in the best interest of the
people of the Province to give the minister discretion to grant these
certificates, why is it not in the best interest of the forest resources and the
people of the Province to give the minister the discretion to revoke those
certificates if they are not compiling with the regulations that are set down,
if they are not compiling with the management plan they put forward, and if they
are not deserving of a certificate? Why can't the minister revoke it? Why does
he have to go and get Cabinet approval which may take weeks or months or longer?
CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One final comment with regard to this, I realize the hon. member and myself
could engage in debate for the rest of the afternoon. But, in terms of the issue
that he is pursuing, he is suggesting that right now automatically - what he is
saying is that the minister would have the authority to automatically cancel if
the officials came back and cited an instance of non-compliance.
The fact is right now, as the regulation reads, the minister has the
authority - and the officials will determine whether it is partially managed or
non-managed. I am sure the hon. member would acknowledge that if we are going
out and dealing with a company or a proponent in that particular area, they
certainly should have the right - and we will go back and make them aware that
we are not satisfied that they are doing what they committed to in their
operating plan - that they have the opportunity to address that and move towards
bringing it back in line. Again, keeping in mind that we are talking about one
year - this is not a ten, fifteen, or twenty year operation, and most of this
operation is seasonal in nature as well. When a lot of this information does
come back the operation is, in fact, over. By the time it comes back the
information is received.
I think the hon. member is trying to create a situation where one does not
exist. Quite frankly, this minister feels quite comfortable that sufficient
guidelines are there to protect the interests of the people of this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If there were sufficient guidelines and they were properly being adhered to
we would not be dealing with the situation where we have a serious shortage of
wood supply in the Province and a reduction in the total allowable cut by as
much as 25 per cent being warned by the minister if it was being done properly.
I think it is pretty clear that it is not being done properly.
In fact, what this legislation is doing in clause 5 is also making it easier
for the circumstances to go on the way they are by suggesting that in addition
to having to go to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to declare a piece of land
or a parcel of land to be unmanaged, the minister has the authority, and the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council being the authority, not to look at the area that
is supposed to be managed but just to look at a portion and say: Well, we will
only declare a portion of it to be unmanaged, thereby making it easier for
non-compliance to take place without there being serious consequences to the
holder of a license. That seems to me, again probably requested by the industry,
but something that is making it easier for non-compliance to take place, because
the consequences are allowed to be less because they can result in a
circumstance where the penalty, if you will, or the consequences are less
onerous because all you have is a portion of the land being declared unmanaged,
and therefore the taxes only relate to that and won't relate to the entire
parcel that the certificate is in place of.
I realize that the minister and I can debate this all afternoon, but I think
the point has been fairly made that these changes may improve the efficiency of
granting of certificates of managed land to forest holders, the holders of
licenses, but they will do nothing to improve the quality of the management of
our forests and exercise of that management by the Minister of Forestry or by
this government.
I think we have a serious situation on our hands, as I said at second reading
of this bill. I won't go on further this afternoon because I think it is a
larger question than this bill itself. I think we are at a point where we really
need to have a big picture study done in the form of something in the nature of
a royal commission to look at the competing uses of our forests, to look at how
we have been managing our forests in this Province, particularly in light of the
new regime that is going to be coming on us with the expiry of timber leases
that have been in place, in some cases, for ninety-nine years, with the fact
that there are whole new understandings of how the forest operates and the
forest ecosystem operates. We have talk of a forest ecosystem management
approach, but we haven't seen any examples of it yet, and yet we see Corner
Brook Pulp and Paper, for example, wanting to go in again as of January 1, to
cut in a 7,000-year-old forest that has been untouched.
That is something that we have serious questions about, if we are properly
managing our forests. We haven't met our commitments to set aside a proper
amount of 12 per cent of our natural landscape for preservation that we
committed ourselves to ten years ago. We have failed to really put in place a
proper sustainability, we have failed to address the competing uses for our
forest, and we failed to address, really, the methodology in which we can
maximize the use of our forest resources to guarantee that those people who make
their living in the woods, whether they be loggers, whether they be people who
are using the woods for other purposes, that we have the maximum use of that
resource.
What we have seen in our forest industries, in fact, is a decrease, a
constant and continuing decrease of the number of people who are making their
living from the forests. Some of that is due to technology, and some of that, I
would submit, is due to bad management. If our forest resources were managed
properly we would have more people working in the woods, there would be more
loggers working in the woods, there would be more harvesters working in the
woods, and there would be more people employed in our forest industry, whether
they be in sawmills or in further value-added activity related to our forests.
So it is not an issue that has to do with: Lets make things easy for the
forest industry. It is really a much larger question which says: Lets do it
right and lets ensure that we are getting maximum use of our forests. It is my
belief, Mr. Chairman, that if we had a properly managed, sustainable forest that
we would have more loggers, that we would have more people working in sawmills,
that we would have more people working in the lumber and paper industry, and
have a much more diversified economy in our forested areas of the Province.
It is in that context that I make these remarks, Mr. Chairman, on this bill
and on the forest industry in general.
On motion, clauses 1 through 6 carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed Bill 22 without amendment,
carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 4, Bill 26.
CHAIR: Bill 26,
An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act.
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a couple of points of clarification, I suppose. The other day at second
reading I made the comment that I wholeheartedly supported government's
initiative to bring in this legislation, because obviously this is a significant
improvement and a move in a new direction in health care, and government is to
be commended for that.
I ask the minister, in
section 1, whether the introduction now of making
provisions for nurse practitioners to be ordering X-rays, whether that has some
implication or put some additional pressure to provide that same provision and
same right to chiropractors, that is not now covered in their legislation.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the minister for allowing me to say a few words. I just wanted to say
that I did not get a chance to speak on this at second reading, and I want put
on the record my full support for this particular bill, to amend the Registered
Nurses Act, to provide for the activity authority, the activity of the nurse
practitioners. These are important health care professionals. I think we have
seen in this Province in recent years, as a result of this, the expansion of the
role of nurses in our health care system. I think one of the directions in which
we perhaps need to go in this Province and in this country in terms of providing
better health care is to look at a team approach that can deliver health care
without having necessarily to have the highest level of health care professional
in every circumstance. I think if we had a team where we had doctors, nurses,
physiotherapists and other health professionals working as a team to serve and
provide services to a group of people, whether it be in urban areas or in rural
areas, we can, I think, provide a better health care system without having the
costs going through the roof year after year after year.
I think we have to get away from the fact that every time someone has a
health complaint, that it is has to be dealt with by a medical doctor or by a
specialist. Obviously, we need to have highly qualified people to ensure that
those who need the attention of a specialist actually get that attention, but we
also have to have an efficient system that is responding to the needs of people
at a price they can afford to pay.
One of the ways of providing better health care in a more direct way is
through making better use of the health professionals who are already
satisfactorily trained to do the work that needs to be done. The Act To Amend
The Registered Nurses Act now before the House is a piece of ensuring that those
health professionals have the authority to do that, that there are proper
protocols in place for the kind of practice that we would expect nurse
practitioners to undertake within the Province.
We fully support this bill and fully support the development of the nursing
profession in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe the question from the Member for Trinity North was to ask whether
the extension of this particular ability to order X-rays is something that would
extend or could extend to other professions, to chiropractors, and simply to say
that would have to be something that would be dealt with, with each individual
profession. We are in the process of trying to develop a canopy act, which the
member spoke to in his previous comments at second reading, that would look at
trying to provide self-governance to other smaller professions as well. That
will take a little bit more time, I believe, to actually develop, but as it
pertains to a specific duty such as X-rays, at this time there is no provision.
As I say it is something that would have to be considered separately, and
decided upon, by government whether to extend this. Of course, it does have
implications in terms of cost to the health care system. That would be a major
concern.
In some of the preliminary analysis we have done in this area, we do have
concerns given the costs to our health care system today, and the difficulty
that we are having in trying to even provide the services that currently can be
requested and ordered by physicians, or in this case by nurse practitioner
specialists who are operating in the acute care setting. We do have some
concerns about extending that beyond that. I would want to do a fair bit more
analysis before making that decision.
Having said that, as both members have indicated, this particular legislation
does provide for a validation of the regulations which accommodate nurse
practitioner specialists. They are a major enhancement to our health care
system, something that I believe really can add to primary health care in the
future in this Province. I think this is a necessary step to ensure that all of
the legal requirements are in place to ensure that these specialists can operate
without challenge, or without question, in our facilities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.
CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?
The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I commented in second reading to the minister, wondering whether or not
this notion of expanding the role of nurses and this new initiative of
establishing nurse practitioners in the Province, because there are other
opportunities to expand the role of nurses in some other areas, I ask the
minister, with respect to this particular bill here, would this new legislation
also cover other instances? I used the example, when discussed at second
reading, about oncology services, whether or not there would be consideration to
taking oncology nurses, for example, and have them function at an advanced
practice nurse level; and, in future, if there were to be those sorts of
initiatives, would this legislation also enable them to be covered off under
this legislation?
I understood from the minister's opening comments that this legislation was
being introduced on recommendation by solicitors. I am wondering if this
legislation provides the breath necessary to allow to cover off other advanced
practice nurses that may be established in the future.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS BETTNEY: What this legislation does, Mr. Chairman, is authorize
qualified nurse practitioners to practice in the manner that has been outlined
and set out in the practice protocol to the nurse practitioners. This practice
protocol has been defined. It has been agreed to by the nurses association, and
all of the other bodies involved. It does provide for this specialist type nurse
practitioner. Consequently, I think you would have to look to the protocol to
say whether there are specifics of different specialities that can be
accommodated there.
I presume that would be the case. As I say, it is contained within the
current protocol. All this legislation does is confirm the protocol that is in
place and ensure that it can't be challenged.
On motion, clause 3 carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,
carried.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The chair is having great difficulty in conducting the business of the House
with the banter going on between the two sides. If there is a need to have a
discussion perhaps the gentlemen could move outside.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Chair, His Honour will arrive shortly to preform an
important duty.
Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit
again.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit
again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the
matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to
sit again.
On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again
shortly.
SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has
arrived.
MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.
SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: All rise.
Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor takes the Chair.
SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Ladies and gentlemen, it is the wish of His Honour the
Lieutenant-Governor that all present please be seated.
MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour, the General Assembly of the
Province has, at its present session, passed a bill to which in the name and on
behalf of the General Assembly I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.
CLERK: A bill, "An Act Respecting The Name Of The Province",
Bill 43.
HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR (A.M. House, C.M.,M.D.,LL.D.,FRCPC):
In Her Majesty's name, I assent to this bill.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor leaves the Chamber.
Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, what we just seen was the official proclamation of
the name of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We did this to coincide -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: We did this to coincide with the events taking place in Ottawa
today by the Governor General.
Mr, Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to debate a number of bills. We will start with Bill 28,
An Act To Amend
The Health and Post-Secondary Education Tax Act.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Hodder): Order, please!
Bill 28,
An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Most of my comments were made in second reading. I just have very brief
comments. Basically, with the bill here, we are increasing the level by which
people have to pay the payroll tax to $400,000 exemption up to $500,000. I guess
with the stipulation here that it averaged out to $475,000. The fiscal year
overlaps with this tax year by three-quarters of the year.
What it would mean, basically, when you look at $500,000 as opposed to
$475,000, it was made to apply to the entire year. I know it would be
retroactive three months. It would be 25,000 times the payroll tax. For example,
if that falls in the category of $500 extra in payroll tax. I have indicated
earlier, it is not just this amount. It is always positive to see this exemption
amount rising because more and more companies can benefit by getting rid of a
tax that is really regressive. It is a particular tax on jobs, because if you
are taxing the payroll of a company you are taxing jobs. People in jobs get paid
and that makes up the payroll. If you increase jobs you increase the payroll
generally speaking and therefore you increase the tax a company pays. That is
not a very positive tax. It is not a very stimulating tax on our economy. In
fact, it is a tax that has a very regressive effect. As we have called it, it is
a tax on jobs.
We would certainly like to see the minister, in future budgets - because we
think it is going to have a positive effect on our economy in stimulating within
our total tax structure. That is just one. I know of many particular taxes
there. It would be more preferable to see revenues shared in different areas
rather than in a payroll tax. We have to have competitive tax rates with the
rest of this country and, particularly, with Atlantic Canada overall.
There are areas to improve in our tax structure, and we would like to see
some movement certainly in that direction. There was significant