Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 19 May 2005 (45th General Assembly, 2nd Session)
2005-05-19
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 19, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No.
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit Strangers.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the
hon. the Member for St. John's West, the hon. the Member for Bellevue, the
hon. the Member for Port au Port, the hon. the Member for Port de Grave, the
hon. the Member for St. John's North, and the hon. the Member for Bonavista
North.
The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate several youth in the District of St. John's
West who will be receiving the Duke of Edinburgh's Award in the next couple of
weeks.
Sarah Dyke, Kyle Howlett, Garrett Wells, Michael Westcott and Lisa Woodrow
will all be presented with the Silver Award next weekend by the Lieutenant
Governor of the Province in a ceremony in Stephenville. While Niraj Skukla will
receive the Gold Award the following Wednesday from His Royal Highness, The Earl
of Wessex in a ceremony in St. John's.
Mr. Speaker, the Duke of Edinburgh program promotes self-development and
community involvement among youth. Participants must meet certain criteria and
doing so requires a great deal of hard work and dedication - qualities that
will, undoubtedly, help these young people excel in their future endeavours.
It is a wonderful accomplishment to receive the Duke of Edinburgh Award, Mr.
Speaker, and I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating these deserving
award recipients.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue district.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a talented student
from my district who has been honoured now for a second time for her skills in
public speaking.
Mr. Speaker, Denika Cox, a Grade 11 student at St. Joseph's All Grade
School in Terrenceville, recently won a speak-off sponsored by the Eastern
Newfoundland and Labrador Lions Club.
At the Lions Multiple District Speak-off held May 14, in Halifax, Nova
Scotia, Denika placed first runner-up. Also competing at this event were
speakers from the four Atlantic provinces and Maine.
Mr. Speaker, everyone in Terrenceville are so very proud of Denika for her
achievements and we assure that she will continue to achieve academically into
the future.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to recognize and thank the Lions Club for
sponsoring these competitions and for encouraging today's youth to speak out
on issues which they feel are so important. I congratulate Denika on her
achievement at this speak-off and ask all members of this hon. House to join
with me in wishing her the best of luck as she continues her education.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of
two young people from my district.
Melissa Foley of Stephenville High was recently named Female Athlete of the
Year. This honour was well deserved as she excelled in three sports at advanced
levels in 2004. In soccer, she was part of the Under 16 Team that won the
regional tournament and competed in the provincial tournament, where she won the
Most Valuable Player for her team. She was also a member of the Stephenville
High School soccer team that won gold at regionals and silver at the provincial
tournament.
Melissa has been a member of her school's 4A Softball Team for three years.
Last year she won gold at regionals and bronze in the finals.
In volleyball, she was a member of the school team that won gold at regionals
and silver at the provincials. Melissa was also named the Junior Female Athlete
of the Year for 2004 at Stephenville High School.
Thomas Bailey, who took the Male Athlete of the Year Award, is a young man
and a high level performer in a number of sports.
In track, he won an individual gold medal in the Three Thousand Meter run at
the 2004 Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Games and was a member of the Western
Newfoundland male team that won gold. Thomas also won a gold medal in cross
country running in the zone championships.
In hockey, he was a member of the Stephenville Midgets A provincial champs
and the Southwestern Newfoundland Bruins that were provincial AA midget champs.
He is captain of the Stephenville High Spartans that won gold in the 4A zone.
In soccer, he played for the Western Under 18 Team and the Stephenville High
team that played at the 4A Provincials. He also plays broomball and is a member
of the Stephenville Tae-Kwon-Do Club where he holds second dan black belt and is
five times a provincial champion.
Thomas has achieved his bronze cross and bronze medallion in swimming and he
also plays floor hockey.
Mr Speaker, I would ask members of the House to join with me in
congratulating these two award winners.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I rise to congratulate a ball hockey team from my district who recently
took home a provincial championship.
Mr. Speaker, the Ascension Collegiate Astros boys ball hockey team recently
captured the first ever Provincial High School Ball Hockey Championship. The
team hosted the championships on May 7 and May 8 at the school in Bay Roberts.
Eight teams from around the Province took
part in this highly successful
tournament.
The Astros advanced to the finals by beating Exploits Valley High in an
overtime win. In the hard-fought final game they defeated Harriet Curtis
Collegiate from St. Anthony.
Mr. Speaker, goal scorers for the Astros in the final game were: Robert
Slaney with two; Jeremy Mercer; and Brian Penny.
Fred Simms promotes high school ball hockey at his school for years and is
ever so proud to coach his boys to this provincial championship.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating the Ascension Astros on winning the 2004-2005 provincial ball
hockey championships, and in wishing much success to both their athletic
futures, and in their studies.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to a
young constituent, Ashlee Forward, a seventeen-year-old student doing Level III
at Prince of Wales Collegiate in St. John's.
Next week, at a ceremony to be held in Stephenville, Ashlee will receive her
Silver Duke of Edinburgh's Award. The Duke of Edinburgh's Award, Young
Canadian Challenge, is a self-development program designed to help young people
between the ages of fourteen and twenty-five with life skills to make a
difference to themselves and their communities.
Participants undertake a program of leisure-time activities and have to meet
prescribed standards in four areas, namely: community service, wilderness
expeditions, physical fitness and skill development. Ashlee actually qualified
for her Silver Award in April 2004, but could not attend the award ceremony
because she was taking
part in the national bowling championships; this will
give you an indication that she is a very busy and involved young lady.
Mr. Speaker, this program provides valuable leadership training for young
people the world over. It is a great contribution to developing leaders of
tomorrow. Ashlee Forward will undoubtedly be one of those leaders, and I ask all
members of the House to join me in congratulating her on her Silver Duke of
Edinburgh's Award and our best wishes for a bright future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I rise to acknowledge the impressive accomplishments of a young man
from the District of Bonavista North. Jeffrey Blackwood of Greenspond has
recently received the Special Directed Activities Cadet Scholarship award valued
at $1,000. Every year one individual in each cadet unit across the country is
presented with this award based on their overall performance as a cadet and
their academic performance in the previous year. This year, Warrant Officer
Blackwood was the deserving recipient.
In addition to his achievements with the cadet organization, this young man
has also recently received a $500 performing arts scholarship. The scholarship
was presented by the Seabird Theatre Festival in recognition of Jeffrey's
outstanding contribution to the arts in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
This young man's abilities and energy seem to have no end, and somehow
between his involvement in the cadets, the high school and the local arts scene,
Jeffrey has found time to become a licensed Eucharist Minister in the Parish of
Greenspond-Newtown-Pound Cove. His commitment to his community is unparalleled
and he has spent time as a volunteer with the local Lions Club and canvassed for
the CNIB and Red Cross.
Jeffrey does not waste time talking about what he is going to do. He simply
goes out and does it. He does look for praise and recognition. He simply wants
to help make his home a better place.
I believe this young man should receive some praise for his
efforts, and I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in
congratulating Jeffrey Blackwood on his accomplishments within the cadet
organization and his outstanding contribution to his community.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform hon. members about recent discussions
between government and FPI Limited regarding its proposal to restructure its
U.S. marketing operations and sell 40 per cent of this entity through an income
trust.
The government's view is that there is legal uncertainty surrounding
whether the FPI proposal contravenes the FPI Act. The act serves as a mechanism
to protect the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador in regard to the affairs
of FPI Limited.
Mr. Speaker, this government takes very seriously our commitment to protect
and revitalize rural Newfoundland and Labrador. As FPI has a significant
presence in many of our rural communities, government has been vigilant in
monitoring this process since FPI announced its intentions.
We have been in constant contact with the company, as well as meeting with
representatives from affected communities. Our main priority is to act in the
best interests of those communities, plants and workers which are directly or
indirectly impacted by FPI.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of recent discussions has been to identify
additional commitments which FPI would be prepared to make in order to raise the
certainty that the income trust transaction is in the best interests of the
Province.
The government has told FPI that it may be prepared to lay these commitments
before the House and allow a free vote on a bill which would approve or
disapprove the income trust transaction. At the current time, the government has
not reached a decision on whether the commitments are adequate to bring a bill
before this hon. House.
Mr. Speaker, we undertake that we will conclude this assessment quickly and
then advise members of this House and the public whether the House will be
reconvened in the very near future to consider this matter.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the advance copy of the statement.
The most amazing part, I guess, to me, and for ourselves as the Opposition,
is that the Premier managed to read a line like this one and keep a straight
face with respect to FPI. He said, with a straight face: Our main priority is to
act in the best interests of those communities, plants and workers which are
directly or indirectly impacted by FPI.
I would think, Mr. Speaker, that the -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the people in Harbour Breton would be pleased to
know that every single member on the opposite side just applauded that. That is
how much they protected Harbour Breton, Mr. Speaker; and I am sure the people in
Fortune are glad that the members on the government side all applauded that the
government has done a great job of protecting their interests with FPI in the
community of Fortune to date.
Mr. Speaker, it is far too little, far too late. It is crystal clear that
what should have happened is that the Premier should have taken the same
starting point with FPI about the income trust that the Minister of Natural
Resources took with Abitibi when he said there would be no energy development
unless there are two machines in Grand Falls. The starting point with FPI should
have been, there will be no consideration of an income trust unless you leave
the plants in the communities where they are today in Harbour Breton and
Fortune.
The horse is already out of the barn, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There has been a great deal of concern in this Province about the commitment
of FPI to the Province and, not only that, their ability to deliver on that
commitment if this income trust situation goes forward.
Last fall, we had the same sort of information, that there were varying
opinions. The Opposition has yet to be made available of those opinions, but we
an judge for ourselves any assessment that the government has.
Mr. Speaker, there is a quota of fish allocated to Harbour Breton that FPI
has control over. No attempt has been made to ensure that this quota will stay
in the community of Harbour Breton to allow that plant to operate. One hundred
families have already left. Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the hon. member that his time has expired.
MR. HARRIS: By leave?
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested. Has leave been granted.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One hundred people have already left and other families are planning to
leave. There is no hope yet in store for what The Telegram calls a test
case for rural Newfoundland and for this government. We don't want to see a
tradeoff here either, Mr. Speaker, Harbour Breton for the income trust. What we
want to see is a commitment from a company that was created by government action
that should be serving the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
no more and no less.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.
The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform hon. members of the House about an event
that will be held next week that will help local companies do business with
various levels of government in Newfoundland and Labrador.
On May 26, the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development,
together with the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, Newfoundland and
Labrador Division, will host a Supplier Development Seminar in St. John's.
Mr. Speaker, each year the provincial and federal governments and their
agencies, along with municipal governments and organizations such as schools and
hospitals, buy millions of dollars worth of goods and services. My department
believes that local businesses, wherever possible, should have an opportunity to
supply these goods and services. Accordingly, we have in recent months held
Supplier Development Seminars in Corner Brook, Grand Falls-Windsor, Gander, and
now St. John's to ensure that as many local businesses as possible have an
opportunity to learn how to participate in providing goods and services to
government.
These supplier development seminars provide potential suppliers with an
opportunity to meet with government purchasing agents and gain a greater
agents to gain an understanding of supplier capabilities throughout Newfoundland
and Labrador.
The St. John's seminar will be held next Thursday at the Holiday Inn from
8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. It will include presentations from the Government
Purchasing Agency; the Department of Transportation and Works; Public Works and
Government Services Canada; Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation; the
City of St. John's; the City of Mount Pearl; the Canadian Manufacturers and
Exporters; the Health Care Corporation of St. John's; Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro, and others.
Mr. Speaker, government and government agencies are large consumers of goods
and I believe that local suppliers should benefit from these transactions
whenever possible. We intend to continue to hold these seminars in other parts
of the Province, with the next one to be held in Labrador, to ensure business
people are aware of opportunities to do business with government.
Mr. Speaker, this is yet another initiative this government is undertaking to
support the development of Newfoundland and Labrador companies and to help them
capitalize on business opportunities.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement today.
Any time there is a supplier seminar, of course, it is of interest to local
companies. I notice that the minister has listed off several locations in the
Province where these are taking place, and I would like to put a word in to get
one in Marystown, on the Burin Peninsula, since the next one now is in St. John's.
I think we all know that what is happening in St. John's is contrary to
what is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, so I would like to have
seen the emphasis being placed on rural Newfoundland and Labrador versus being
in St. John's.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that this is yet another
initiative, it says, by this government to support the development of
Newfoundland and Labrador companies. I would like to let the minister in on a
secret, if she does not know that this is nothing new, this has been done by the
private sector for years. In fact, I recall when the Marystown shipyard in Cow
Head held such a supplier seminar down on the Burin Peninsula.
One of the issues, of course, is that when you are looking at supplying
departments of governments and agencies of government with services or supplies,
it is important to make sure that the specifications are written in such a
manner that local companies can, in fact, take advantage of it and they do not
end up with specifications that make it impossible for them to compete.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.
I will say to the minister, this is indeed a good initiative. It is an
initiative, Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Grand Bank said, that has been in
place in the private sector for a long time. I have had a lot of involvement in
the local area that I represent, Mr. Speaker, with the mining companies holding
public forums for local suppliers. Again, we have seen that happen in Voisey's
Bay, with a preference given. While this may be new for government to take on
this role, I think it is good to see that government is -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. COLLINS: The normal question, Mr. Speaker, by leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. COLLINS: Thank you.
It is good to see government get involved and hold supplier forums so that
the local businesses can have an opportunity and understand the needs of
government in terms of supplies. There are many good paying jobs in the service
sector. It is the service sector, in many cases, that provides the stability for
the community because there are a lot of jobs that are occupied by them. It is
good to see government become involved in this setting as well.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, our office has been hearing regularly from an individual from
Norris Arm, in the District of Lewisporte. This gentleman, Mr. Gerald Higgins,
has been raising concerns about the possible linkages between the proximity of
power lines and transformers in communities to the development of certain types
of cancer in some individuals.
I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Is he aware of these
concerns?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance, President of Treasury
Board, and Acting Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, that individual concern I am not aware of. I am just generally aware of
the implications where you are close to areas where there could be emissions and
so on, the general effect. I have certain knowledge about that in general, but
not specific cases. We would not want to deal with a specific case here anyway.
It is a policy of the department not to talk about individuals and individual
cases.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Higgins gave us permission to use his name. It is not about an individual
case. It is about an issue that he is raising as a general problem with cancers
and electromagnetic fields.
Mr. Higgins has provided our office with a growing body of evidence - I will
pass it over to the minister here later today so he can have a look at it - that
he has collected from across Canada and other parts of the world, that show a
potential linkage between long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields of power
lines and transformers and the development of certain types of cancer.
In light of this growing evidence - which I will send over to the minister,
because Mr. Higgins wants him to have it - does the minister have any plans to
conduct a review of these concerns?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister of Health and Community
Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Like I said initially, I have done fairly extensive reading. I subscribed to
a lot of medical publications for the last twenty years. I have read that in
numerous articles. I think it was referenced even in the Mayo Clinic one that I
read back some time ago. I am fairly familiar, with my background in it, and
have some knowledge.
My understanding of this case, while I do not know the details, I understand,
I think, it is the same individual who, when the Leader of the Opposition was
Minister of Health, asked him to do a study on it. I am wondering if anything
was done then. If he has any other information, he can put that with it when he
passes it over to us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to see that the members of
the government caucus find this very amusing.
Mr. Higgins -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Higgins, who has given us permission to use
his name in this Legislature, has been pursuing this issue for five years. Yes,
I have been aware of it for five years, and he is asking the current government,
with its new approach, to do a study.
Let me ask this final question. It is a serious issue, Mr. Speaker. Mr.
Higgins has conducted a lot of research himself, personally. His wife is
currently dying of a cancer that they believe is caused by living under a
transformer in the community of Norris Arm, and he has identified various cases
from other jurisdictions that appear to give some credence to his concerns.
What I am asking on his behalf today is: Would the minister be at least
willing to assign someone to look at this growing body of evidence, which has
gotten a lot larger since I heard of it five years ago? I say to the members who
are laughing raucously at it, it has gotten a lot bigger since then. He is
asking: Could at least somebody be assigned to do a review to see whether a
larger scale review study or inquiry is warranted? It is a serious question.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister of Health and Community
Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very much aware of the concerns. I live within about 200 metres of a
substation myself, I might say to the Leader of the Opposition, so it is not
oblivious to me what is happening.
We will take it and take a look at it, if we feel it is necessary to pursue
it in any great detail. I will say, though, the Leader of Opposition was the
Minister of Health five years ago when he became aware of it - or whenever it
was, several years ago - and I do not know what they did with it. If it is so
urgent, I have never heard it from him in five years here in this House, if he
considers it urgent and he is concerned, but we will take any complaint that has
any degree of potential concern. We will take it -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: - and we will look at that. Officials who we consider
expert officials in it will make a recommendation on whether we should proceed
and do something of an extensive nature.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Transportation and Works stood in this House on April 7 of
last year and said there would be no closure of highway depots. It was later
said in this House that we would have thirteen depots with lights on and nobody
home.
Mr. Speaker, if the minister is closing the depots, laying off 125 people,
and does not plan to contract out, who is going to look after the roads?
By the way, Minister, we received many calls today from workers saying that
they are finished after this long weekend. With no workers, no depots and no
contracting out, how will road maintenance, signage, line painting and other
services be provided in these affected areas?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, anything I said in this House last year we
kept. There were no closures of depots last year. This year we proposed a
reorganization of our department that would see - not closure - winterization of
thirteen additional depots in the Province. Some of those were done years ago,
but we are now planning to do thirteen more.
The hon. member is wrong again in terms of his research and the number of
people who will be affected. There was an opinion in the beginning that perhaps
upwards of 120 or 125 people would be affected. That number is now between
eighty and eighty-five and it is currently being worked on, Mr. speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. ANDERSEN: Still, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, there are a lot
of people being sent home.
Mr. Speaker, this government promised in the Blue Book to reduce ferry rates
to the cost of road travel. Ferry rates went up last year by 10 per cent and
again this year by 5 per cent. The Minister of Finance read the Budget Speech
that said no fee increases, yet ferry rates went up shortly after. Minister,
when is government going to stop deceiving the people in this Province and cut
ferry rates, as you promised?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: The problem with this member and with this Opposition, Mr.
Speaker, is what Russell Wangersky said: Look, they wouldn't know the truth if
it jumped on them.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that we announced a 25 per cent ferry
increase last year. We announced that it would start with 10 per cent last year
and go up 5 per cent over the next number of years until it was achieved. Even
with doing that, Mr. Speaker, we are subsidizing provincial ferries in this
Province today over 90 per cent.
AN HON. MEMBER: Why did you put it in the Blue Book?
MR. RIDEOUT: The Blue Book, Mr. Speaker, is only out of whack on a couple
of sources, let me tell the hon. member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: We have our homework done and we are living up to the
commitment in the Blue Book, and the equivalency that we promised in the Blue
Book is being delivered to the people of this Province today, with a couple of
exceptions that I am now working on.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I guess their Blue Book is shot and I guess a
prime example of: Get up, Tom, and heave it out of you.
Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transportation and Works inform the House of
the current status of the Salmonier Correctional Institute property vacated when
government closed the facility last year? Will this land be retained for
agricultural use or is government considering alternate uses, such as resort
development for this land?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: No, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman there are a
whole bunch of considerations that have been placed in front of government in
terms of the use of that land in Salmonier. Agricultural is one of it, and we
are certainly looking at that with a positive view to keeping the land,
excellent agricultural land in the agricultural industry and part of the
agricultural industry of this Province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The federal government sets a quota for crab in the Province, the provincial
government sets the rules for processing. The provincial government has issued a
new crab processing licence to the region and has set the amount of crab to be
processed in St. Anthony. The federal government sets the quota for groundfish
in the Province, the provincial government sets the rules for processing
groundfish in the Province. Why won't the government be consistent and have
the historical, traditional groundfish quota stay and be processed in Harbour
Breton?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is articulating the position of the
Opposition, than it is radically different from the position that the Opposition
took when we debated raw material sharing for seventy-two days in this House of
Assembly and outside of this House of Assembly from March 2 until last Thursday
or Friday, and certainly over the last number of days. I guess you could say
over the last eighty days.
Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition wants government to implement raw material
sharing throughout the range of species that is processed in Newfoundland and
Labrador, then why don't they just say it? If not, Mr. Speaker, if they are
going to condemn us for trying it on a pilot project basis in crab, then do not
the next day tell us that we should do it for groundfish on the Connaigre
Peninsula.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not saying to -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, on a
supplementary.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
All I am saying to the minister is that we are looking for consistency here.
If you are prepared to do it for one group than why aren't you prepared to do
it for the other?
To the minister, there is no doubt about it that the Community of Harbour
Breton is reeling from the closure of FPI. What I am asking you now then: Are
you saying that you are now prepared to do the pilot project in the
groundfishery for the Community of Harbour Breton as you did for the pilot
project for the Town of St. Anthony?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: A cheap shot. I say to the hon. member, that is a cheap shot,
a very cheap shot. I can guarantee you, in the absence of a raw material sharing
system that the Town of St. Anthony and the crab license in St. Anthony and the
crab plant in St. Anthony would probably get a lot more crab that it is going to
get under the raw material sharing system that we propose. I can guarantee you
that, Mr. Speaker. Anybody knows that Clearwater that owns 75 per cent of the
plant in St. Anthony is about the third biggest fish company in Canada. I
suspect they can compete with just about anybody in this Province, if the free
market was going to dictate where we went, but that is not where we went
Mr. Speaker, as to the people in Harbour Breton, we have said consistently
that we are going to try to do what we can for the people of Harbour Breton. As
for raw material sharing, we are trying it on a pilot project in crab. If the
Opposition wants us to apply it industry-wide for all species, why don't they
stand up, stop talking out of both sides of their mouths, and say what they
want. Don't say on crab you don't want to do it, and then say on groundfish
that you do want to do it, Mr. Speaker.
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 Finance and President of Treasury Board.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's department is engaged in an
aggressive program of collecting school tax arrears, most of which are over
thirteen years old. In addition to the -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Colleagues, time is passing, the Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi. I ask all parliamentarians for their co-operation.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I hope it is not our time that is passing.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is engaged in an aggressive program of
collecting school tax arrears together with punitive compound interest at the
rate of 1.2 per cent per month, ending up near 100 per cent of the original tax
owing this year.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen examples of people who own $150 in tax having to
pay $1,600, someone who owes $700 or $800 having to pay $4,500, and, in fact, in
one case someone owed $2 in tax but had to pay $86, because the rest was
interest. They are also grabbing income tax rebates from people.
Will the minister relent on this program and allow people to pay the taxes
owing without being shaken down for outrageous interest charges in a very unfair
and oppressive system that is being imposed starting this year by this minister?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I cannot see how $2 would grow to $86 with compound interest in
that period. I would like to see the math on that one, I might add, with $2
costing you $86.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: I will say, on that issue - and I want to make it clear
because it has not been articulated in the public - any individual who owed
school tax and they could not locate, or lost contact with, there is not a penny
of interest on accounts for people with whom they have had no contact. I want to
make that clear.
Also, numerous colleagues of mine here have raised this issue and I assured
them, and I assured the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi just a couple
days ago, that I am taking it under consideration to look at what can be done to
address this. It is an issue that has been going for thirteen years under the
former government with about one person dedicated to dealing with 128,000 files
- absolutely ridiculous.
We are looking at dedicated people to deal with this, deal with it quickly,
and we are going to look at avenues to be able to alleviate the burden. We are
looking at those particular options here. I have heard it from my colleagues on
dozens of occasions here. We are looking at it and we are going to see if
something can be done to address this in a reasonable manner on behalf of the
people here in our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I talked to an individual today who told me that
last year they offered to write off half the interest, but this year, now that
he has some money to pay it off, said: No, the deal is off. We want it all.
Now, there are an awful lot of arbitrary things going on in the minister's
department dealing with this tax. Much of it is unfair. Why will he not just
have a total amnesty on the compound interest going back thirteen years, collect
the tax - nobody objects to paying the tax - and be done with it? Otherwise, of
the $40 million he is trying to collect, $30 million of it is interest, and it
is unfair how people are being treated. Will he deal with this in a fair and
reasonable way for all those people who are being attacked this way by the
government?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Out of the amount of money that is out there, we anticipate, even projected,
that a very small percentage of this would be collected overall out of what is
outstanding. Starting the year, there was over $40 million. That number is going
down, but we will certainly look at that.
I said to him, even two days ago, we are dealing with this. We are going to
take a look at this. The amount of money collected would have only been in
probably the $7 million range anyway, out of the $40 million that is out there,
so we are looking at dealing with that $7 million or $8 million. It has gone on
far too long. It has gone thirteen years, dealing with this. It is absolutely
too long. A lack of proper management and fiscal responsibility of the former
government - the Auditor General cited that. We want to deal with it, but we
will look at avenues to deal with it in a fair manner, deal with it responsibly,
and deal with it as expeditiously as we can.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House I put questions to the
Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development regarding her department's
lack of a rural plan. Today, the Conference Board of Canada says this Province
has a steadily declining population base and that Newfoundland and Labrador is
not expected to generate a lot of new jobs during 2005 since there will be no
repeating last year's significant employment gains in the construction,
manufacturing and other primary industries, and activity will wind down at the
major construction sites. The same points I made yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that
the minister shrugged off in her answer.
The minister can ignore the facts if she wants, but she should not ignore the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador who want to know when they are going to see
some results from this government's much touted but non-existent plan. Where
are the much-promised jobs?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr Speaker, we are undergoing a downturn in the oil and
gas industry at the moment and that reflects some of the downturn, the loss of
jobs. Hebron-Ben Nevis is about ready to come on stream. We will lead the
country again in 2007. Besides that, we have an economic diversification plan in
place and we have put tools in the hands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to
create sustainable economies in their regions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the Minister Responsible for
Rural Development is hanging her hat on the oil and gas industry only. What
about the fishery? But, then, we know how they have deal with the fishery.
The Conference Board of Canada also says that the large number of layoffs in
the public service and education system will have a negative impact on the
economic growth of this Province.
Minister, when is your government going to realize that cutbacks are not the
answer, and to do something real to address the growing problems facing our
rural communities? Twenty-seven hundred people have left this Province since
your government took office, and more are leaving daily. Are you going to let
the population of rural communities continue to decline?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there are tremendous opportunities for economic growth in every
region of this Province. If members of the Opposition feel the only way that
rural Newfoundland can survive is through government jobs, then we are in a lot
more serious trouble than they are saying over there - but that isn't the
truth. There are all kinds of opportunities -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS DUNDERDALE: - in mineral development, in agrifoods, in aquafoods, in
aerospace, in wind power, other sources of energy. There are enormous
opportunities, and now, thanks to this government, the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador have the tools to exploit those opportunities and build sustainable
economies throughout the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister who just sat down, tell the 401 teachers she just fired
about the job opportunities there are in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Education.
This government has slashed 401 teaching positions over a two-year period.
That is equivalent to laying off more than one teacher a day for every school
day in a two-year period.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: How can he say that eliminating 401 teaching
positions will not negatively affect the education of our youth, especially
those who live in rural areas of our Province? Tell the parents and the students
of Pasadena Elementary that teacher cuts will not affect their education.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question from the hon.
member, I remind the hon. member that there are challenges in Newfoundland and
Labrador, challenges that this government are facing that your government faced.
When we talk about teacher loss, and we talk about seven years, seven years
of Liberal Administration, and 1,230 teachers over those seven years, we
understand the decisions that you had to make and you must understand the
decisions that we have to make.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the challenges facing our education
system, challenges that could easily be overcome by leaving those 401 teachers
in the system, I say to the minister.
Mr. Speaker, last year this government spent only $8 million of the $12
million allocated for school maintenance and repair. We are now only one month
away from another school year ending, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: Have tenders been let yet for the much needed repairs to
these schools or are you again trying to save money on the maintenance and
repair budget like you did last year?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again I say to the hon. member on the other
side, we had to deal with not only a deficit but a mess, and a mess that you
left our schools in. We, this year, took a positive action of $16 million
towards the repair of our buildings to make sure that our classrooms are safe
and secure for students.
I say to the hon. member: Yes, we are moving forward. We are letting out
tenders. The work is being done and it will be done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As to the mess he talks about, in the last four years of our government we
spent over $200 million on school maintenance, repairs and construction.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, my final question -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Colleagues, time is passing quickly.
The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: A final question for the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government, of which I was a part, built a
twenty-bed health care facility on Fogo Island. This government, the current
government, saw fit only to open ten of those twenty beds. We now see sick
people lying in hallways on stretchers while other elderly sick people are told
to go home, we have no beds.
I ask the minister: When is your government going to do what your Premier
committed to do during the election, open all twenty beds of the health care
facility on Fogo Island?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister of Health and Community
Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I answered that question here a couple of weeks ago in the Legislature. I
will repeat it again, in case he was not listening here. In case he wasn't
listening, I think it was in the Estimates Committee here in this House. I
indicated that the Regional Integrated Health Authority is going to look at all
people who need assistance and need to be - whether it is hospitalized, whether
it is long-term care, whatever the needs are, and they are going to deal with
it.
The very member, when he sat in government over here, their government in
1992 paid the highest bidder to build a hospital in St. Lawrence under the Trans
City scandal and there are ten beds that have never opened; thirteen years
later, there are ten beds never opened to this day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My, my, so much aggression.
My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works. Minister, on May
5 the Marine Atlantic Advisory Committee made its report public, and I
understand you did meet with Minister Lapierre and he provided you with a copy
of that report. One of the recommendations in that report, 15.4, recommended
that the offices, the headquarters of Marine Atlantic be relocated from St. John's
to Port aux Basques. I am wondering if the minister has had an opportunity yet
to study the report enough to be in a position to comment as to whether he
supports that recommendation or not?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. member for his question. I did have an opportunity to meet
with my federal counterpart and be briefed on the report. There is a lot in the
report that we liked from a transportation perspective, from a tourism industry
perspective, and I am very pleased to be able to say to the hon. gentleman that
this government supports, 100 per cent, the relocation of the headquarters for
Marine Atlantic from St. John's to Port aux Basques.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier announced the site for
the Corner Brook long-term care facility. He talked about the look on the face
of seniors in the area who will have access to the new building. I can tell the
Premier that residents from my district who have been waiting for new long-term
care facilities in Grand Bank and Conception Bay North have a look of despair
and hurt, because their facilities have never been mentioned. Premier, all
seniors deserve the same respect and concern.
I ask the Premier: When will he proceed with plans to build the much needed
facilities in these two areas of our Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister of Health and Community
Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Province has identified three top priorities, and they have been
announced. The Corner Book facility - the Premier and the Minister of Justice
were there yesterday and made an announcement on that facility. The other
facility we have announced is the Clarenville facility. It is a high priority.
There are more senior people living in that area than other regions of the
Province; a high priority. And we mentioned Happy Valley-Goose Bay. These are
the three priorities.
We recognize there are other high priorities out there in the Province. For
example, the Carbonear region is one. In fact, the City of St. John's was
higher on some of these priority lists than some of the ones that are announced.
We do have pressing needs in numerous areas of the Province and what we are
going to do as a department - what the department will do is assess those
priorities. They will assess the geographies to be able to serve these people.
The Clarenville facility, I say to the member, should be able to service a
significant part of your district, too, in that region because it is in close
proximity. So, we are going to do what is appropriate and what is best and have
care for people and, as time permits us - we are getting there. We made a
commitment, Mr. Speaker, which that government never made on long-term care
(inaudible) for the Province (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, last week when the Minister of Education was asked questions
about the prevalence of a gambling culture in our junior and senior high
schools, I believe all of us were surprised at his answer. He said: There is a
responsibility on the part of teachers and staff, who are in these schools, to
make sure that any of these activities are addressed. Mr. Speaker, I would hope
that the minister has checked on this very serious issue.
I ask the minister: What has his department learned about the issue, and can
he tell us today that he has advised all schools to ban poker activity on all
school properties in our Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In response, and we certainly take that type of behaviour in a very serious
manner. The question was posed here across the floor last week and, as a result,
the officials in my department, in consultation with school board officials,
went right throughout the Province. We consulted with the school board
officials, we consulted with school officials, administrators and teachers, and
we found very little, if anything, in the way of outright gambling going on
within our schools. As a result, I can say honestly to you that there is not a
problem with gambling in our schools. If there were, it would be dealt with at
the school level, it would be dealt with at the board level, and it would
certainly be dealt with at the minister's level at the Department of
Education.
As well, we know there are difficulties that are in schools that are
reflective of what goes on in society, but in this particular case we certainly
did not find any need to authorize a ban of that activity in our schools.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time for Question Period has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Colleagues -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I table (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I am asking all members for their co-operation. We are all parliamentarians.
We all have responsibility to maintain a form of decorum and parliamentary
discipline in our Chamber.
The Chair was recognizing the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board. I ask him if he could present his report now, because I believe
his mike was turned off.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In case the mike was turned off, I will do it again.
I table reports for the 2003-2004 fiscal year for the C.A. Pippy Park
Commission and the Newfoundland and Labrador Municipal Financing Corporation.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table the 2004 Annual Report of
the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to table the Report of Mining Leases, Mineral Licences and
Surface Leases Issued for the Period April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005.
MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of further documents.
Notices of Motions.
Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition submitted to me by residents of the
Conception Bay North area. Again, I am calling upon the government, and these
residents are calling upon the government, to intercede on behalf of Mildred and
Clovia Baker.
As I have said before many times in this House, Mildred and Clovia are in
wheelchairs, they are fed through feeding tubes, they require assistance
breathing, and cannot perform most tasks we take for granted.
Mr. Speaker, these two ladies had twenty-four-hour home care and it was
revoked. They have lost five hours a day. They are down now to nineteen hours of
home care. Most people in their condition, who are tube fed and in this
condition, have adequate hours of home care.
Mr. Speaker, I was e-mailed just a short period of time ago, and the lady
says to me, "You are welcome to read this letter in the House of Assembly
if you wish. Government representatives may not realize that many people watch
the airing of the House of Assembly."
Mr. Speaker, I speak on behalf of a constituent of mine. "It has been
brought to my attention that every time you have raised the issue of Mildred and
Clovia Baker, which is a concern to many people, family, friends and members of
the community, Mr. Sullivan conducts himself in a manner that shows he has no
concern for the well-being of the disabled and elderly of the Province."
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member will know that, even in written correspondence, we should
refer to members of the House by their title or by their district, and I ask the
hon. member if he could abide by that usual form of parliamentary decorum.
MR. SWEENEY: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I was reading a document and it
slipped by me.
"I do understand that this sort of thing happens among members of the
House and sometimes the adults forget that they are representing the people of
the Province. But when two people are forced by the government to become
shut-ins because of the cut in home care hours and they see this behaviour and
reaction from adults with power it becomes very personal.
"I have two children, a 10 year old and a 7 year old, who have more
respect for the disabled and elderly of our community than we have witnessed
during the airing of the House of Assembly. It may be a non-issue to a lot of
people. I can only pray not one of your will have to face the issues and illness
that the Baker family has had to endure for the last 40 years to be brought to
this point of neglect and discarded by the very people who depend on the votes
of these two people and so many others like them."
Mr. Speaker, this is from a person who is very, very concerned about their
well-being, and there are other people out there concerned about the well-being
of these people. It is touching, it is heart-wrenching, when you see the
condition that these two people are forced to exist in.
Mr. Speaker, I call upon the government again today, in the name of humanity,
to please look into this situation and reinstate the five hours of home care
that was taken from these two ladies.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a large number of residents
of our Province concerning VLTs and the affect, negatively, they are having on
the people of our Province.
Mr. Speaker, I introduced yesterday a list of 1,500 names of people who want
to have a say in what happens in our Province with respect to gambling. As this
petition was circulating around the Province, and as I was bringing it forward
to the House of Assembly, little did we know at that time that we would be faced
with another form of gambling that experts say is equally or more dangerous than
gambling, and that is in the form of electronic KENO, with a draw every five
minutes of every hour of every day.
Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that measures taken in the Budget this spring
that froze the number of VLTs in the Province, that is going to reduce them by
15 per cent over the next five years, that provided $750,000 for addiction
treatment and addiction awareness - I don't believe it is right at this point
in time, with a study being commissioned by this government, that they should
allow Atlantic Lottery Corporation to bring in a new form, equally as
devastating as VLTs, in the form of electronic KENO, to our Province.
I am asking the Premier and his government to advise the Atlantic Lottery
Corporation that this is not going to happen in our Province until a study as
confirmed one way or another the gambling addiction problem that we are
currently faced with in our Province as a result of VLTs and other forms of
gambling that have been allowed to come in over the past number of years.
Government has a responsibility here, Mr. Speaker, to the people of the
Province. Part of the job of a government is to serve and protect the people who
elect them, and people need protection from this type of activity. This is
having a devastating affect on a lot of people in our Province. I have received
letters, and I know other members of government have received letters as well,
from the families of people who had gone to the extent, were so desperate, Mr.
Speaker, that sadly enough they have taken their own lives, as the only way they
saw out of their gambling addiction.
I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that the government, on the eve of
commissioning a report into the prevalence of gambling in our Province, should
allow the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, with no consultation whatsoever with the
people of the Province, to unilaterally bring in a new form of gambling that
will bring with it a whole new set of problems. We don't even have any
understanding of the magnitude of what they will be.
I am asking government, Mr. Speaker, to inform the Atlantic Lottery
Corporation that they will not be permitted to install these machines in the
Province, to put them into action - which, by the way, is supposed to happen
within the next week or so - until, at least, the report into the prevalence of
gambling is made public to the people of the Province and we fully understand
what the implications are of having these machines here.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 3,000 of my constituents who
are calling on the government to continue the replacement health care facility
in Grand Bank and, as well, to continue with the decision by the previous
government, by the Liberal government, to put a CT scanner at the Burin regional
hospital, as well as to put a dialysis unit on the Burin Peninsula.
Mr. Speaker, these residents live in an area that, from time to time, can
become very isolated. Weather conditions are such that they find themselves
cut-off from places like Clarenville and St. John's, making it virtually
impossible for them to avail of the services that exist in those other areas.
What they are saying to the government is that you must understand that when you
need quality medical care, then time is of the essence. And they are saying that
for the CT scanner in Burin, if they cannot access that - sometimes because they
cannot get off the Burin Peninsula - it could be a life or death situation, Mr.
Speaker. So, they are calling on the government to put the CT scanner at the
regional hospital in Burin and to put a dialysis unit on the Burin Peninsula.
There was a public meeting held in Marystown, that I referred to yesterday.
It was held in Marystown with over 400 people turning out to voice their opinion
and to call on the government to put that CT scanner and a dialysis unit on the
Burin Peninsula.
I listened to my colleague from Bellevue, when he questioned the Premier
about the other two health care facilities, one in Carbonear and one in Grand
Bank. The Premier did not take the question but the Minister of Health did, who
then went on to say that the government had determined its priorities. Well, Mr.
Speaker, the priority for people living on the Burin Peninsula is a replacement
health care facility in Grand Bank. It is one where $3.5 million has been put
already. We have a structure standing there, but, of course, that is as far as
it is because the government decided not to continue with the facility. In fact,
the Premier, who promised on three occasions to complete that, has chosen not to
do it. I am calling on him to reconsider, to go back and make that commitment
again to the people on the Burin Peninsula.
He talked about the reaction he saw in Corner Brook yesterday, the look of
happiness on the faces of the seniors who are going to benefit from the new
facility in Corner Brook, and I applaud the government for doing that. It is
long overdue, but I say to the Premier, as my colleague from Bellevue said, all
seniors in our Province deserve the same respect and concern. How you can make
chalk of one and cheese of another is beyond me, especially when you have made
the commitment on three occasions to the people on the Burin Peninsula, and they
are still waiting for that facility to be completed. It is not a new facility,
it is not a new service. It is a replacement facility. It needs to go there to
replace a facility now where patients are being cared for in a facility that was
not designed to care for acute Levels III and IV. It was, in fact, designed to
care for people who require Levels I and II.
Of course, the old cottage hospital that exists there, which serves as a
clinic, badly needs to be replaced. It is in a deplorable condition and we are
calling on the government to live up to the commitment given by the Premier to
replace that health care facility, which includes the seniors' home and the
clinic, and to put a CT scanner and a dialysis unit on the Burin Peninsula.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Today I want to stand with a petition on behalf of the residents of the
Districts of Port de Grave and Bellevue, Carbonear-Harbour Grace, Harbour Main-Whitbourne,
and Trinity-Bay de Verde. Some of those petitioners are workers with the
Department of Transportation and Works, as well as citizens in the area. It is
in reference to the thirteen highway depots that were referenced here earlier
today. I guess I am glad, in one sense, that the minister has confirmed that the
number will not be 125, as we anticipated in the beginning, but now we are
looking at still eighty to eighty-five people who will be affected by this
change.
The petitioners are asking that where Premier Williams promised NAPE there
would be no layoffs and where they are seeing a downgrading of the services of
the roads in those areas, that government should reconsider their plan.
Mr. Speaker, I know some of the issues that are pertaining to my district in
particular, and in the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde. I get calls from the
workers from both of those districts, calls from residents of the area and, in
particular, in relation to the road that links the two districts together. It is
called the New Harbour road or New Harbour barrens. A very small portion of that
road is in my district, but, I can tell you, that does not lighten my
responsibilities in fighting that this road would be considered this year
because it joins the two districts together. It provides services for people in
my district, as well as Trinity-Bay de Verde, who work back and forth either way
and who go there for their shopping and other needs. Mr. Speaker, that
particular road is in a terrible condition. Even the workers on the trucks and
plows, when they are working on that road they say that the shoulders are gone,
the pavement is crumbling on the shoulders, and they find it very difficult and
dangerous in the winter when they are plowing the road.
We heard the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace yesterday stand with a
petition with 3,000 names on it, with regard to the main road through Harvey
Street in Harbour Grace. I have been talking to the people with the department.
The upgrading and repairs to the guardrails on the roads and the painting of the
lines in my district is something that has not been done now - it was not done
last year and I do not think it is in the plans for this year.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I just want to call upon the government to
reconsider. I know eight-five people coming out of the system cannot help the
cause of improving the road maintenance in that particular area.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 445 residents of the District
of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the member, Ms Jones, would certainly have
liked to present this petition yesterday but it did not come in until this
morning and she is unavailable to be here this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, what these 445 residents are asking for is a replacement vessel
for the MV Apollo , the ferry that comes across the Strait of Belle Isle,
because, as we all know, that ship or vessel is experiencing engine trouble with
one of its engines and it appears that it will not be repaired for a period of
six weeks. The individuals who signed the petition feel that they are having
trouble making connections on that vessel, because on windy days it does not
always run and, as a result, they are not being able to make the trip. Besides
just the normal passenger transportation, Mr. Speaker, it is also interfering
with the shipment of goods and services to that area.
Mr. Speaker, representing two islands that use ferries, Fogo Island and
Change Islands, I certainly can understand the frustration that the people in
that area of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair are experiencing right now when their
ferry is supposed to be operational and, in fact, it only runs when the weather
will permit it, which is not often at this time of the year. So, what they are
asking the government and calling upon the government to do is to get a
replacement vessel up until such a time that the MV Apollo is repaired
and gets put back into service.
So, I call upon the Minister of Transportation and the government to find a
replacement vessel as soon as possible so that the people can continue with
their normal daily routine. Also, Mr. Speaker, this is the start of the tourism
season and the residents in that area, who have businesses, are certainly going
to see a loss of business in the next six weeks as a result of this. So, again,
I call upon the government to find a replacement vessel until such a time that
the MV Apollo is repaired and can be put back into service.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition here on behalf of the community of Harbour Breton,
approximately eight hundred and fifty people signing, asking that the government
would maintain a fish quota and enable the community to survive and to prosper.
Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, when I asked the minister a question on the town,
he thought the question that I asked somehow was a low blow. Never did I intend
to do that; because, I tell you, the situation, as I see it, in the Town of
Harbour Breton, is very, very serious. It is devastating to the whole community.
The point that I was trying to make was simply the fact that the people in
the community are wondering why they cannot keep their quota that has been
processed in the Town of Harbour Breton for the last forty years. That is all we
are asking for. We are not asking for a new quota. We are not asking for
something from anyone else. The people of Harbour Breton have worked over the
last forty years for this, for this company, and they are saying that if FPI, as
a company, want to move out of that particular town or that particular region
then the quota that has been with the town for the last forty years should stay
there.
Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult and desperate in the community. Every day
there are people leaving. I had the opportunity to talk to one of the people of
the action committee again today. I thought I might have had the letter by the
time I came to the House, a letter that they have written to the shareholders of
FPI. They are very serious. They are looking at the people who are on the FPI
Board of Directors from Newfoundland who are businessmen. They are looking at
possibly taking some action to target these people, the fact that they think FPI
acted very cavalier with their particular community, and they are not going to
sit back and take it.
The community is in a crisis situation. It is devastating, where people have
had to declare bankruptcy, give back their cars, sell their all-terrain
vehicles, have cable disconnected, Internet disconnected, and people who would
like to go to Alberta, by the way, to work, do not have enough money to go.
That is a very difficult situation. These people now, this has been about
seven months that they have been in this type of a predicament. It is not
pretty. It is the worse situation I have seen in the area that I have been
representing for about the last sixteen years. It is not only just the community
of Harbour Breton; it is the whole region itself.
These people gave me these petitions and I have tried to present them in the
best way that I know how, making the point that the community is in a crisis
situation. It is a whole region that is devastated. These people are looking to
government to try to find a solution for them and realize that if companies like
FPI are allowed to pull up stakes, take all of their resources with them and not
leave it for the community, then obviously it does not mean well for their
community and other communities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me time.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to present a petition on behalf of some 3,694 petitioners from Central
Newfoundland, the central part of the Island. Most of them are actually
residents of the Electoral Districts of Windsor-Springdale and Baie Verte. It is
with respect to the issue last year of the mandatory permits for snowmobile
regulations for the use of snowmobiles on the trails.
Of course, the petition, organized by Mr. Peter Pelley, who has written a
covering letter to the Premier of the Province attaching these 3,694 names, they
still want it presented because their understanding is that the promised
consultation did not occur, of course, before the legislation was done, as is
normal with this government, and now the promised consultation with respect to
the regulations - because there were to be some regulations put in place
afterwards for possible exceptions and exemptions, and the establishment of
fees, and that process apparently has not occurred either. These people are very
upset and disturbed with that. They are calling upon the House of Assembly to
live to their commitments, to the promises that have been made, that they have
heard themselves in the televised broadcast of the Legislature. They have
actually heard the ministers make them. They have seen it in writing, they have
heard it with their own ears - and again they make the commitment and just do
not follow through.
There are 3,694 residents, mainly in these two particular districts. Many of
them, by the way, were members of one of the most successful snowmobile clubs in
the Province, in the Exploits region in Central Newfoundland, the central part
of the Island. Since then - because that club itself bore the brunt of bad
government policy, bad legislation, and a broken promise to come out and consult
about what the regulations would be, so that people could talk about whether or
not there could be an exception or an exemption to go to your cabin on a route
that you, yourself, had actually put in place with your neighbours and have been
using for twenty-five years, and could you go on that route, if you had to cross
the trail, without having to pay a permit? The government said: Oh, we will look
in to all of that because that is allowed in Ontario, that is allowed in Quebec.
We will send out a committee and we will have a consultation. Guess what they
have heard about that since? Absolutely nothing.
The season is over now. Maybe they are still planning on doing that
consultation prior to the snowmobiling season next year. This 3,694 people are
asking for the government to live to its word. They disagreed with the
implementation of mandatory permits for the use of snowmobiles in the first
instance. The government ignored their pleas, would not meet with them, did not
consult with them, and did it anyway. Then the government promised to at least
consult on the regulations about possible exceptions and exemptions.
I guess the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation must have been
extraordinarily busy ever since because he has not gotten around to it, and
these petitions are asking him to please do so.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am the sixth member here to stand today to give a petition to a government
that does not listen. I am the sixth person to stand here today, and every
petition that was entered by a member on this side was to make government aware
that a promise they had made, they had not kept.
I am going to be the sixth one here today to tell the Minister of Natural
Resources that he made a promise to the people of our Province, and particularly
to Central Newfoundland, on May 4, that he would not enter into negotiations
with Abitibi-Consolidated until he had a commitment for a two-machine operation
in the Grand Falls mill. But, you know, he broke that commitment on May 4.
Usually there are a few days in between, or a month or two, but our Minister of
Natural Resources decided to break that commitment after two days, after the
Premier came back in town and told him: Don't get out too far, now, promising
something you can't deliver.
Well, he delivered it, and we believed it, but now he is going back on his
word. It is interesting, you know, Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask one of the
Pages, when I am done here, to deliver to every government member an ad that was
in The Western Star , and that was October 25, 2003. Abitibi-Consolidated
took out a half-page ad, and they put it in The Western Star . It was
three days after the provincial election, when the new government, the
Progressive Conservative government, got elected, and they are now our current
government. It was unusual, because I have never seen this before. It was
Abitibi-Consolidated in Stephenville, and they took out a half-page ad, and it
was to remind your MHAs to honour their commitments to resolve our critical
issues at the mill, the mill in Stephenville, and they asked them to do two
things. Government has two critical tasks before it, and they asked them to have
a timely resolve to address the issue of power and fibre at the Stephenville
mill. Across the side of the ad there was a caption there and it was in big,
bold letters: You've got my commitment. It was signed by Danny Williams.
Now, that is an unusual ad to have in a newspaper three days after an
election. I have never seen it in all my years. It is unusual, and I want all
government members to have a look at it because the Premier made a commitment,
although I don't see any action on that commitment to date.
I also have to say that the Minister of Natural Resources made a commitment
to the people of Central Newfoundland. He is an honourable minister and he said
he will stand to Bill 27, which I expect him to do. It is law in this Province.
He made another commitment, and I don't know how he can look me straight in
the face when he knows that he broke that commitment.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's allotted time has expired.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will have another opportunity later in the afternoon.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a couple of hundred people
who use the Frenchman's Cove provincial park on the Burin Peninsula. In fact,
Mr. Speaker, it is the only provincial park on the Burin Peninsula, and at one
point it was in danger of not being included among the Province's provincial
parks, but we fought that one and it still remains a provincial park today.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it can't provide the services that they want to
provide for not only the tourists who visit the park but the locals as well. The
Friends of the Park have made a concerted effort to try to improve that park.
They have worked very hard trying to ensure that the facilities are there to
attract tourists, but as well facilities that will make camping for them
something they want to do with their families. They spend a lot of time at that
park. It is a park that is heavily utilized by the Friends of the Park and
people on the Burin Peninsula, again since it is the only provincial park on the
Burin Peninsula.
The one thing that is lacking there is a dumping station, and of course we
all know how important that is to anyone, especially if you are driving an RV or
if you are driving any kind of camper, or for anyone who is camping there, the
importance of a dumping station to those who go and stay at that park. They are
calling on the government to recognize this as an important feature that they
need to add to this provincial park. They know that other parks in the Province
have such a facility, and they want to bring the Frenchman's Cove provincial
park up to provincial standards. They think that with the inclusion of a dumping
station that will, in fact, happen.
At present, they are finding the fact that there is not one there deters
tourists. In fact, when they inquire whether or not there is a dumping station
there, and there isn't, they have a tendency to move on and look elsewhere.
Being, it is the only provincial park on the Burin Peninsula, the Friends of the
Park feel that if they, in fact, had that dumping station it would enhance that
park to the point where you would find more people utilizing it, and therefore
make for a much more viable park and more people, of course, using it, not only
the locals but the tourists as well.
They are calling on the government to acknowledge that this is a provincial
park, and in acknowledging it, acknowledge as well the need for a dumping
station. They have the showers and that there. They were put there a couple of
years ago. That really brought the park up to another standard. Now they are
asking that a dumping station be included so that we can see the park become
that much more viable, and not just for people who live in the area, but for the
tourists as well.
Of course, it is adjacent to Grande Meadows Golf Course. We know that a lot
of people who utilize the golf course also utilize the provincial park, and vice
versa. What they are saying is that this is a key component to the entire
tourism success on the Burin Peninsula and it will be a shame not to see that
grow. That is why they are calling on the government to acknowledge that this is
key to the tourism success on the Burin Peninsula and to put in place a dumping
station so that it will add to both, not only the park, but to the golf course
as well.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today on another petition. Before I start this one I want to say for
the record, there were fifty-eight pages of people who signed that petition from
Central Newfoundland; right from Buchans to Leading Tickles. So, there are a lot
of people concerned about that situation. That was over 1,000 people since
Monday. This is only Thursday.
Today I stand, again - it is too bad I am not allowed to say who is not in
this House. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I stand today again to ask for funding to
repair the Buchans highway.
Yesterday the Minister of Transportation and Works and I had a lot of
dialogue across the House. A bit of a shouting match by some people's
estimation, I am sure. He, at that time, told me that he had asked his director
to give him a report on the condition of the Buchans highway. Now two weeks is a
long time to get a report on the Buchans highway, but, I mean, he had that
report two years ago and he did nothing with it. He did nothing with that
report.
You know, the funny part about that, the Minister of Transportation and Works
is a rural Cabinet minister. They are rare in this particular Cabinet. We have
four, what are so-called rural Cabinet ministers, out of fourteen. Now, I know
there has been a lot of jockeying going on in the backbenches this session and
hopefully some of the rural members will get a chance to get into Cabinet before
too long. For a minister who is a rural minister, the Minister of Transportation
and Works, he would certainly understand. He grew up in La Scie or Baie Verte
and spent most of his life there. He would understand that on the Buchans
highway, which is 105 kilometres off the Trans-Canada Highway, certainly has to
have a road that is in good condition.
Do you know something? The Minister of Transportation and Works, the only
money that was announced so far this year was for repairs and new construction
of highways on the Baie Verte Peninsula where he grew up - and he has a Cabinet
colleague who sits in the front row. So, I am sure he understands the necessity
of repairing rural roads, unless it is the government's plan to close down
services to rural Newfoundland, shut out services so people will have to move.
Well, the people of Buchans decided not to move in 1984 when their mine closed,
and they have been living there ever since.
As a previous government, when I was the member and minister, I made sure
that highway repairs were done every year. You cannot cut off these people, Mr.
Minister. You cannot cut off services to these people, 105 kilometres off the
Trans-Canada Highway. There are ambulances coming down, there are children going
to school, there are heavy equipment travelling over it to go to the new mine at
Duck Pond. There is all kinds of activity. People have to get to and from work,
and doctors appointments. So, if you have any heart and if you want - I heard
your Premier last night trying to stand up -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MS THISTLE: Can I have leave for a few seconds?
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.
MR. E. BYRNE: A few moments to clue up, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A few moments to finish up your comments.
Leave has been granted.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I heard the Premier last night on Open Line saying how he has great interest
in rural Newfoundland and he will make a great effort to do all he can for rural
Newfoundland. Well, I say, Mr. Premier and Mr. Minister of Transportation and
Works, this is your opportunity. Put your actions into words and dollars and get
that work done!
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Before we get to the remainder of the legislative program for the day, I want
to just move Motion 1, and that is pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House
not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, and I also want to move Motion 2, pursuant to
Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I believe we are going to begin this afternoon with
Act.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that pursuant to Standing Order 11,
that this House not adjourn today at 5:30 of the clock.
All those in agreement, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
MR. SPEAKER: Carried.
It is further moved and seconded that this House not adjourn today, Thursday,
May 19, at 10:00 p.m.
All those in agreement, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
MR. SPEAKER: Carried.
I do believe that it was Order 7. It is moved and seconded that the House -
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act to Amend The Buildings
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to Bill 35, an amendment to the
changing the timing of inspections to address a backlog issue during peak
building plans must still be submitted and approved by the department before
construction can begin. We are amending one
section of the legislation to remove
a mandatory inspection prior to occupancy. All projects will be inspected,
either during construction, before occupancy or as soon as possible thereafter,
based on our scheduling commitments in various areas.
ensuring everyone has adequate access to public buildings. This will only permit
some buildings to be occupied prior to a final inspection so businesses or
occupants can move in without an unreasonable delay. Where possible,
preoccupancy inspections will continue to be conducted and the department will
work with the construction industry to ensure compliance. All projects will be
inspected at some stage. The department can still set preoccupancy restrictions
on any construction project if there is a concern. The building plan approval
may include a condition for a final inspection before occupancy.
they will have to undertake corrective actions at their own expense. Although a
to their enforcement will not change. Government is also living up to its
commitment to reduce red tape associated with doing business by allowing some
flexibility on building occupancy and ensuring the most efficient use of
resources.
Consultation on additional amendments to the legislation, as recommended by
with the resulting amendments being brought forward in the fall. I ask for your
support on this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Looking at Bill 35, it is certainly not the intention of the members over
here to be against this bill with regard to any initiative, I guess, that will
guarantee people with physical disabilities the opportunity to improve
themselves and to improve access to buildings and so on. As a matter of fact, I
think this will probably make things in the construction industry happen a
little bit faster and so on.
The only concern that I do have, though, Minister, is the number of people
who are presently in the workforce of government, and what reduction this would
have on our union members in government, for the municipalities to issue permits
rather than go to Government Service Centres. If this is a trend that continues,
I am sure that the members of NAPE and our public sector union would have some
comment on that, because - I know you are going to say, to help speed up the
process.
The other point that I have here, too - and it may be a indication, for this
bill to be amended in such a way, that there are already too many cutbacks in
your department. I think the one that comes to my mind most of all is the gone
fishing sign on the West Coast, when somebody went in to get an electrical
permit and the electrical inspector had taken three weeks vacation and there was
a sign there basically saying: Gone fishing.
It is that sort of thing that I am leery of; but, other than the intent of
this side of the House certainly have no objections, other than the fact of a
possible reduction in unionized positions and a reduction in the workforce of
government.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am rather surprised that the minister and, in fact, the Official
provisions of the act. In fact, three sections of the act are being amended
the current act -
section 6 of the current act that is being amended - one of
the things that is happening here is that
section 6.(3) is being removed
entirely.
Section 6.(3), and the title is called Prohibition, says, "A
permit to occupy a building shall not be issued until an inspector makes a final
inspection and states in writing that he or she is satisfied that the building
complies with the requirements of this Act and the regulations." It is
being repealed. In other words, an occupancy permit does not depend on a
contractor or an owner meeting the requirements of the act.
So, you can have the grand opening of a brand new mall, and everybody is
obligations dealt with before you get your building inspection and your final
permit to occupy.
If that is an improvement, Mr. Speaker, it is an improvement that assists the
owners of buildings, it is an improvement that assists the contractors, perhaps,
public building in order to get in. That is not an improvement; I will say that.
The second part of the act that is being changed is
section 14. First of all,
section 10.(4) is repealed. We should look at that, because I had to do a little
bit of research in order to find out what was actually going on here.
Section
10.(4) removes the power of the director. The director has one less power. He is
not allowed to determine - for the purpose of occupancy of a building - that the
submission is made and the inspection requirements have been complied with. In
other words, he does not have that power because, of course, you do not have to
have your building complying with the act to get an occupancy permit any more so
we take away that power from the director.
Not only that, Mr. Speaker,
section 30 is also amended, paragraph 30.(
j) of
the act. It is very interesting. What other power is being taken away? Because
section 30.(
j) of the act is repealed.
Section 30, in fact, is a
section which
says that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council - that is the minister and her
colleagues in Cabinet - may make regulations. There is a whole series of things
that the Cabinet, the minister and her colleagues, are allowed to make
regulations about. They can set standards; they can exempt certain buildings,
either generally or in particular; they can prescribe sorts of classifications;
they can make regulations prescribing the agencies who will be considered
acceptable to conduct inspections, et cetera, et cetera.
There is one that they have, a power that they have now, they can make
regulations prescribing the manner in which inspections are to be carried out on
buildings prior to occupancy. Repealed, Mr. Speaker. The minister and her
colleagues in Cabinet are no longer allowed to make regulations prescribing the
manner in which inspections are to be carried out on buildings prior to
occupancy.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have a free-for-all until the building is
built. The building is built, occupied, everybody can go in, and at some point
down the road the minister can send in an inspector and say: Well, are you
maybe you should do it - I will give you six months, I will give you three
months. Maybe we will come back again in another year and see if you have
complied.
Is that helping the people who are disabled, who need to get access to
buildings? No, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it is taking away the strength of the
existing act and I think it is taking it away for a reason.
I heard a story just today, Mr. Speaker, of an individual who built a store
in Labrador City, and he could not open the store. Do you know why? He was three
months waiting for an inspector to come and do an inspection on the store. One
inspector in Labrador - one. One inspector in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. How come
he did not come? No travel budget. They took away their travel budgets. They are
not allowed to travel. So you have a store owner in Labrador City who wants to
open his store, with his store finished, all ready to go. All he needs is an
inspector to say: Yes, you can get an occupancy permit - cannot do it. He has to
keep the store closed for three months waiting for an inspector to come to
Labrador West from Central Labrador and Happy Valley-Goose Bay because the
travel budget has been taken away.
Mr. Speaker if the minister has a problem with the inadequacy of inspections,
you do not take away the right to inspect. You do not take away the requirement
to inspect. You go to the Cabinet and say: Cabinet colleagues, I have a problem
because we do not have enough inspectors. We have a backlog of inspections. We
do not say: Okay, well, let's just loosen the regulations. Let's just loosen
the act. Let's loosen the requirements. You do not do that. You go the other
way and say: Mr. Premier, my Cabinet colleagues, I have a real difficulty here.
We have a very important piece of social legislation. In fact, it is related to
the Human Rights legislation, because discrimination against someone on the
basis of physical disability is contrary to the Human Rights Code. So we have an
act here that is trying to resolve that problem, but we cannot enforce it
because we do not have enough inspectors. Not only can we not enforce it,
buildings that are finished cannot be occupied because we cannot send someone in
to make sure they have the requirements. Now, that is the problem. The problem
is not the act. The problem is that the minister is not able to comply with the
act. The minister does not have the inspectors that she needs to go in and
ensure the act is enforced.
recommendations in terms of changes of the act. Not one of the amendments that
Board did not say to the minister, lessen the regulations; did not say, get rid
of the power to inspect prior to occupancy; did not say, let them go it and we
will deal with it later after the building is built. They may never go in again.
If the minister does not have enough inspectors to go and inspect, they may
never see the building again. The person who could not show up for their grand
opening cannot go there a year later either.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am not supporting this legislation. This is backward
legislation. It is not progressive legislation. It is legislation that takes
away the rights of people who are disabled. It takes away the abilities of
people who are disabled to know that their government is acting in their best
interests and is going to make sure that new buildings which are built in this
Province are accessible under the act.
The disability community, Mr. Speaker, does not want this. What they want to
see is
an act that is strengthened, that ensures that buildings, even buildings
that were built before the date set forward in the act are being brought up to
date. They want to see schools, for example, being made accessible. We have a
situation, Mr. Speaker, where a young child can go to Kindergarten, one, two,
three in a school that might be accessible and everybody else in that class goes
on to another particular school because of the streaming system that we have,
except the disabled child. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because the school that
all those students are streamed into does not happen to be accessible. So,
instead of going on to the next grade with her friends, the disabled child has
to go somewhere else to a different school with a whole bunch of brand new
people just because the school that she is supposed to be going to does not have
go there. This minister should be coming to this House and saying: We have a
real problem here. We are trying to find the money to fix it. Instead of that,
Mr. Speaker, what she is doing is lessening the strength of the act, lessening
the strength of the power to even make regulations to inspect the building prior
to occupancy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, after this act is passed, if they do pass it - I hope they
will not. I hope they will change their minds. If they pass this act, Mr.
Speaker, guess what? The government will no longer be able to ensure that
prior to occupancy. They cannot make any regulations to do that. I want to know
why this minister is bringing this legislation here? I really do not. Who is
asking her to do it? The inspectors are saying we cannot inspect these buildings
fast enough because our travel budget will not let us get around. Are they
saying that we have laid off too many people, so therefore we must change the
act? Are the contractors saying: boy, look, you know we need a break here? We
the building. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. That is wrong.
I do not hear the Minister responsible for Labour Standards come in and say
we are going to drop th electrical code prior to occupancy. I do not hear
someone coming in and saying we have a problem with electrical inspectors. We
cannot inspect all the buildings, so the best thing for us to do is to drop the
electrical code and let people - we will do that after occupancy. I do not see
us changing the rules about making sure buildings are safe for electrical
reasons or for plumbing reasons or for other reasons, but the minister is coming
occupy the building. The only problem is the people who are disabled will not be
able to come in because we have not met the requirements, but that is all right.
We are going to make an exception for them. They do not have to be able to go
into a building when it is opened. We will let the inspectors go in afterwards
and let them say: Okay, we will give you sixty days, we will give you six
months, and if we have the ability to come back and inspect again, we may come
back and see whether you have done it or not.
Well, I do not think that is acceptable, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that is
acceptable. I think that is a backward step. I think it is a backward step in
not have to comply with the act, being worked on. The Court House down here on
Duckworth Street, a lot of money was spent over the last number of years to make
that building accessible. Now maybe there is a reason why, Mr. Speaker. Maybe
somebody who is disabled, who is charged with an offence, will not even go into
the building, and say: I don't have to go because the building is not
accessible. I am going to go to the Human Rights Code. Maybe that is why the
Court House is fixed. I do not know, but there are an awful lot of public
buildings in this Province, hospitals in this Province, personal care homes in
regulations and act. What this minister should be doing and this government
should be doing is saying that we are aware of that. We are very concerned about
that and we have a program which says that we are going to ensure that all
and commit the resources to make that happen.
Now, I know we have other problems with schools. We have schools with leaks
in the roofs that are not being fixed. We have schools with mould. We have
schools with windows that need to be repaired. We have a lot of problems, Mr.
Speaker, but the people who have disabilities and who need accessible buildings
should not be put on the backburner, and that is what this minister is doing. He
is saying that people who need access to buildings in this Province are going to
take second place to somebody's desire to open this building sooner rather
requirements prior to occupancy because this minister apparently does not have
enough inspectors to get out there and do it. If she does not have enough, there
are a lot of unemployed people in this Province. We have the highest
unemployment rate in the country.
So, if she does not have enough people to do it, hire some more, I say, Mr.
Speaker. If they cannot inspect the building because they do not have a travel
budget, give them a travel budget. Hopefully, by the end of the day, we will
have it one step closer to getting another $2 billion in the coffers that will
help us deal with some of the problems that we have, but if we are sitting here
in the Legislature today saying we are going to lessen the requirements for
public access to buildings for people who are disabled in this Province, if we
are going to do that, then what will we do with the money, Mr. Speaker? Are we
going to pay down our debts and ignore the disabled? Is that the plan? I do not
think so. I hope it is not, but we are here for some reason or other.
There is some pressure being put on the minister to deal with these amendment
to the act rather than the dozens and dozens of recommendations that the
ago, March of 2004. This is May of 2005. So, fourteen months ago we had a series
of recommendations, none of which had to do with making it easier for buildings
to be occupied without meeting the requirements - none of which had anything to
regulations and act, for making it more restrictive, for making it more
sensitive to the needs of people who are disabled, but they are not being acted
upon. Somewhere between the report of March, 2004 somebody has gotten to the
minister. They have come to the minister and said: Well, never mind this for
now. We will deal with that later, but I want you to do something. I want you to
bring this to the House right now. We need that right now. We need that in May
of 2005 before the House closes. We need that legislation in place to ensure
that we can open buildings that are not accessible. We want to make sure we can
open buildings that are not accessible. That is going to be our priority and we
will deal with the other recommendations later.
Well, I do not think that is good enough, Mr. Speaker. I know that the
Cabinet has many things on their plate but this minister, obviously, went to the
Cabinet and asked for approval of this legislation. Why didn't she go there
and say I have a problem? Why didn't she go and say I have a problem? I do not
have enough inspectors. I cannot get them out in a timely fashion, buildings are
being held up, and I need some more money for inspectors. That would be the
proper thing to do, not come in here and ask the House to approve a lesser
standard in buildings for people who are disabled to have the right to even get
people being denied the ability, because of a physical disability in most cases,
to actually get into a building. Now, I do not think that is good enough, Mr.
Speaker. I do not think that is good enough. I do not see how this government
can come in here today with a straight face and say this is an improvement to
the legislation, because what they are doing is removing their power to have
control over this and they are actually making a lesser standard for buildings
that are being built now than existed before this legislation was brought
forward.
So, I am asking this minister, reconsider this bill. Reconsider this bill.
Come back in the fall with a comprehensive change to the regulations. Go back to
are going to conduct. I do not have a problem with that. I would rather have
seen you come forward this session with some comprehensive recommendations. If
they are not ready yet, well so be it, they are not ready yet. Maybe they will
be ready in the fall. Mr. Speaker, why do we have to make this change now? Why
doesn't the minister ensure that we have more inspectors or have more money to
be able to ensure that these inspectors can do their job? That is what I think
should be happening, Mr. Speaker, not passing this legislation here today.
I ask the minister and the government to leave this legislation at second
reading, if you want to, or not bother to finish it. We don't need to have
this kind of legislation. What we need is something that is actually going to
order to be able to get in there. Everybody else can get in there, Mr. Speaker.
Anybody else who wants to go to the grand opening of a brand new supermarket or
a brand new mall or whatever can go there, but not someone who is disabled,
because this minister is saying: No, no, you can have an occupancy permit
without meeting the requirements. We are prepared to put these regulations on
the back burner. You still have to have your electrical permit, you still have
to have your plumbing permit, you still have to have every other permit in
exception because we have decided that we, apparently, think less of these
requirements than we do of the others.
I don't think that is right, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think this
government should be on record as supporting that kind of change.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Government Services speaks now,
she will close debate at second reading.
The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we have the strongest legislation for the
that Act. All we are asking here is to have a timing of inspections change in
peak periods, so that people can occupy the building. We will definitely go in
and do an inspection on that building, but we are asking for some flexibility
here.
I have met with the handicapped community and explained what we are doing
here. Everything has to be in compliance. There is absolutely nothing taken away
from that, not one thing. We are saying right now that we need our inspectors to
have flexibility so that we can spread out our inspections, because in peak
times of construction buildings have had to be held up until we have gotten a
final inspection prior to occupancy. All we are asking in this bill is to give
us the flexibility to do our inspections over a period of time.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 35 by now read a
second time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
MR. SPEAKER: Carried.
Bill 35.
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this
bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. E. BYRNE: Later today, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day.
Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole
House presently, by leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 9,
An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, Bill
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 39,
An Act To Amend The
Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service
Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 39)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This bill here is intended to do, I guess, one specific thing. There are a
significant number of people who are working now in a bargaining unit who are
coming under the Office of the Chief Information Officer, which was under
Executive Council. These people now are moving from what would be bargaining
positions into non-bargaining positions within Executive Council.
I will preface it by saying there are other workers, too, who have left
Treasury Board and gone to Finance, who are gone from non-bargaining positions
into bargaining. I sat down with the president of union and looked at it, and we
have reached an agreement on a method to deal with these, and the changes are
reflected in this legislation here, that I have reached with the president of
the union, Mr. Speaker, I guess within the last forty-eight hours on this issue.
Because, with the change, I guess, as most people mentioned, there are changes
going both ways, of course, but this one, going from a non-bargaining into a
bargaining area, obviously there is legislation in place to cover those
particular areas. What will happen here, I will just explain it so people will
have an understanding of what we are doing, we are taking some 100 to120 people
who are going into Executive Council now, which technically they are going to
non-bargaining positions, effectively, under the current legislation today, as
soon as they go in there, which is now, they will become non-union members and
they will be non-bargaining.
What we have done, and reached an agreement, these 120 people - I think that
is the number, or very close to that - will maintain their status in the union
and technically we will grandfather these while they are here. Some are going to
be here for the next twenty or twenty-five years. They will have union status
and be members of the union all during this process. Some of them are only here
a few years, and some a bit more. I think the average age of the people going in
are younger than the public service generally, because in the IT field there is
more of a growing area of government.
Not only that, what we have also done in addition to that, Mr. Speaker, this
was raised by the union and we agreed with that, not only will we grandfather
these in - normally what would happen if someone left, that would get filled by
a non-bargaining position - we have indicated also that even if a position
becomes vacant, let's say at a higher up level, somebody who is at another
level below will have an opportunity to move up to that position rather than
have someone non-union go into that position.
That will allow two things: protection for them - even though they are
technically in Executive Council, where there is no bargaining - to allow them
to maintain that status, and will also allow a process so they can advance and
get promoted within that group, because otherwise they would not have it if we
followed the current legislation. They would not be in it, number one, and now
that we are going to allow them to go in it, we want to allow someone who might
be a GS 38 and a GS 44, if they leave or retire, allow them to compete.
Normally, it would be filled by non-bargaining. Now, if they are qualified to go
in there, they will get that advantage to be able to move along. So, that gives
protection not only for their status now but also an opportunity to advance and
does not hinder them in getting promoted and moving there.
This has been agreed with union members. I sat down with the president and a
member representing these people in IT, and we did reach an agreement that we
have established with the transfers of personnel here, and I must say that we
did get to a very successful resolution to that. This is what this reflects here
in this particular bill.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have had an opportunity to read Bill 39 and we have been kept informed by
the Government House Leader and the Minister of Finance as to the progress
between his department and the union. Of course, as circumstances change from
time to time you need to amend legislation to reflect those changing
circumstances.
We are pleased to see that an agreement has been worked out with the unions
involved, and we will be supportive of this piece of legislation.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand this legislation being brought forward was based on a Memorandum
of Understanding between the Newfoundland Association of Public and Private
Employees and the government, and it is on that basis that I support the
legislation.
Can the minister, when he closes debate, indicate whether or not, although
these positions appear to be red circled in terms of unionization and conformity
with obligations to the union, and some special rights associated with them, are
they then subject to collective bargaining as well or are they outside the
collective bargaining regime but there is a separate regime based on the
Memorandum of Understanding for those people for their careers? I guess that is
the question here.
I do note that exempted from this provision in the Executive Council is the
Lieutenant-Governor's establishment, and these are the people, the staff, who
work at Government House, who I understand have been unionized for many years
and will continue to be unionized. They are not affected by this. When I saw it
first, I said: Oh, no, you are not going to take them out. I don't see any
reason to take them out of any unionized situation, but I understand they are
not included in that, so that seems to be perfectly appropriate.
I guess the only thing that I would ask is: Is it intended that these people
would then be subject to the general collective bargaining regime, whether there
are raises that are of general application, or will they be dealt with under the
non-bargaining unit regime of Treasury Board with respect to other wages and
benefits?
The minister has mentioned that they would continue to be members of NAPE for
the purposes of collection of union dues, et cetera, and also have certain
rights of advancement related to their status as bargaining unit members. Would
they also be subject to the other aspects of collective bargaining as it goes on
over the years, or will they be part of the government pay plan separate from
the bargaining unit status?
I do not have any objection to the legislation if it is something that has
been worked out between the union and the government. If this is designed to
facilitate that, I certainly do not have any objection to it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board speaks now he will close debate at second reading.
The hon. the minister.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
These individuals, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, of course,
as he indicated accurately, as members of the union who pay union dues, will
have all the rights and privileges of members of a union, and any actions and so
on that they may want - if there is labour unrest and they want to take action -
they will have the same rights and privileges. We hope that will not happen, but
they will have all the same rights and privileges to be considered a part of
that specific bargaining unit.
As we know, with time, that number will decrease until some time, probably
thirty years time or more, there will be none left, basically, of a bargaining
unit there. Who knows what happens in the next five, ten, fifteen years, what
structure government could take on, but we have agreed to protect that status
and to allow them the opportunity to advance along with the process, along with
having the rights and privileges of people who are in the bargaining unit, not
just dues-paying members of that union.
With that I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 39,
An Act To
Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a second time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining
Act. (Bill 39)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this
bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. E. BYRNE: Later today, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Later in today's session.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective
Bargaining Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the
Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 39)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 5, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance
Act. (Bill 26)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 26,
An Act To Amend The
Automobile Insurance Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile
Insurance Act." (Bill 26)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill 26,
An Act To Amend
The Automobile Insurance Act.
I am pleased to speak today on the additional reforms we are introducing
today as a result of the public review process and the department's own review
of several related issues.
It was fourteen mon