Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements — 29 March 2004 (45th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLV No. 6)
2004-03-29
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 29, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 6
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
This afternoon we would like to welcome to our House of Assembly, the people's
Chamber, fifty-five members of the Mount Pearl Senior's Independence Group
& the 50+ Club. They are here to visit the House. I believe it is for the
very first time that this group has visited our Chamber.
We would also like to welcome as well thirty-five Level II and Level III
students from Queen Elizabeth Regional High School, and their teacher, Mr. Fred
Wood.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: At this time I would like to rule on a point of order raised
by the Opposition House Leader on March 25. On March 25, the hon. the Leader of
the Opposition raised a point of order in Committee of the Whole concerning an
intervention made by the Committee Chair relating to the procedure being
followed.
The member who had the floor was asking questions of a minister. The Chair
suggested that it was up to the minister to decide if she wanted to answer the
questions as they were asked, by leave, or wait until the member speaking had
finished his ten minute segment before she answered all of his questions. The
Chair then invited the member speaking to continue his remarks. The Leader of
the Opposition suggested that it was not uncommon for a speaker to allow a
minister to use part of the speaker's time to answer a question. The Minister
of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs stated that those
suggestions were correct.
When the Committee had risen and the Chair reported the adoption of the
Interim Supply Resolution, the Opposition House Leader raised a point of order
concerning the proceedings in Committee of the Whole and appealed the ruling of
the Committee Chair. The Opposition House Leader stated at the time that he was
asking for clarification of the practice in Committee.
First, in regard to the method of appealing a ruling of the Chair of
Committee, it was the Chair of the Committee, at the request of a member of the
Committee, who reports to the Speaker. The Chair will not dwell on that
particular aspect at this time.
It appears that during debate in Committee, when the minister did not rise as
the individual questions were being asked, the Committee Chair assumed that she
was waiting until the member had completed his questions, at which time the
minister would answer all the questions during her ten minute speaking segment.
The Chair then invited the member asking the questions to continue. In the
opinion of the Chair, proceedings were in order and therefore rules that there
is no point of order.
To respond to the Opposition House Leader's request for clarification about
the allocation of speaking time in Committee of Supply, our practice is that
each speaker has ten minutes to speak, except for the minister introducing his
or her estimates and the member replying. If the minister or person being
questioned so wishes, and with leave of the questioner and Committee, he or she
may answer questions as they are asked rather than waiting until the member has
used his or her ten minute speaking time to reply.
Thank you very much.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon's members' statements, we have statements
from the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, the Member for St. John's Centre,
the Member for Bay of Islands, the Member for Mount Pearl, the Member for
Torngat Mountains, and the Member for Bonavista South.
The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate a constituent of mine, Mr. David Regular of
Harbour Grace, on being elected to the newly formed board of directors of the
National Youth Talent Contest.
Mr. Regular will serve as the only director for the Atlantic Canada region. A
member of the highly successful Trinity Conception Fall Fair Committee, Mr.
Regular also serves as a Newfoundland and Labrador provincial coordinator for
the National Youth Talent Contest.
Mr. Regular, who will serve a two-year term on the board, is now working
toward bringing this national event to this Province in the year 2006. Mr.
Regular is a well respected member of the community and I am sure he will work
diligently to ensure that his representation is strong.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating Mr. David Regular on his recent appointment to the National Youth
Talent Contest.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to highlight a young resident of St. John's
Centre, Mr. Cody McLean.
Cody is an eleven-year-old student at Holy Cross Elementary School, who
participates in tae kwon do. He has participated in the Atlantic Championships
held here in St. John's in 2002 and was awarded two gold medals. He also
represented the Province at the Atlantic Championships last year in Halifax.
This coming May, Cody will be attending the Canadian National Taekwon Do
Championships to be held in the Province of Ontario.
Aside from his athletic accomplishments, Cody McLean has also been awarded a
$100 financial scholarship recognizing his academic success, and I had the
pleasure of presenting him with the Holy Cross Self-Esteem Award earlier this
year.
I ask that all hon. members of this House join with me in acknowledging Cody's
success and wishing him good luck at the National Championships in May.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to extend congratulations to the organizers,
athletes, coaches and families who participated in the Canadian National
Disabled Skiers Family Fun Festival held at Marble Mountain, Steady Brook,
during the week of February 29 to March 5, 2004.
The week-long festival was hosted by the Corner Brook
Chapter of the Canadian
Association of Disabled Skiers which saw over 100 participants registered from
across Canada. Each day, skiers participated in ski improvement classes, and
each evening was filled with social events with a very Newfoundland flavour.
This is a second time Marble Mountain has hosted this event. The first time was
in 1994, and it is only the third time the event has been held outside Alberta
or British Columbia.
I commend the organizers and many volunteers for their dedication, hard work
and commitment to bring this event to Corner Brook and Marble Mountain.
As well, I extend congratulations to Margaret (Mugs) Tibbo, who was awarded
the Carl Hilzinger Award.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MR. JOYCE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. JOYCE: This award is presented to an individual for their outstanding
contribution in developing skiing for people with disabilities.
I ask all members to join me in extending congratulations to the Corner Brook
Chapter of the Canadian Association of Disabled Skiers on a job well done, and
to the participants who show the true spirit of determination and prove to us
all that a disability is an opportunity of which they take full advantage.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, I wish to recognize a tremendous contribution to our community of
Mount Pearl by the Seniors Independence Group and the Mount Pearl 50+ Club
Members.
They are very active and vibrant groups in our community in Mount Pearl, and
we are very fortunate to have these active adult groups.
The Mount Pearl 50+ program is mostly about being physically active, with
social activity involvement. The Mount Pearl Seniors Independent Group, their
main goal is keeping seniors independent and healthy in their own homes.
They are always on the move, Mr. Speaker, all year round, and some of these
activities are: Exercise (dry land and in the swimming pool), Bowling, Line
Dancing, Friendship Program, Craft Program, Seasonal Dances - Paddy's Day,
Valentine's, Halloween and Christmas included.
The Seniors Independence Group, Mr. Speaker, have a drop-in centre and that
comes every Wednesday at the Park Place -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MR. DENINE : By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. DENINE: - games and social afternoon, Foot Care Clinics with the VON,
SnowBusters Program, odd jobs in the summer, such as mowing lawns and painting
fences.
I must also mention that the Parks and Recreation Department in the City of
Mount Pearl also works in conjunction with these groups. They assist them in
summer outings, and these outings have included: Castle Hill in Placentia, Bay
Roberts-Carbonear-Hant's Harbour, Brigus Blueberry Festival, and Southern
Shore trip to Horse Chops. When they go on these trips, they meet other seniors
groups and usually there are some social events planned for them.
A lot of seniors are involved in both associations. They are a great group of
people, Mr. Speaker, and again I welcome them here today.
I must mention an upcoming event for the seniors in Mount Pearl, and that is
Seniors Awareness Day at the Reid Community Centre on May 12, an Information Day
on Health and Resources for Seniors, and this is free of charge.
Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone here in this House today to offer congratulations
on a job well done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, March 27, marked the twenty-sixth annual
winning of the Labrador Heritage dog team race. This year it was held in the
community of Rigolet, with fourteen drivers taking
part in the event, including
one female driver. Teams from the communities of Mud Lake, Hopedale, Makkovik,
Postville and Rigolet took part.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Kenny Pottle on winning the event. I want
to thank the committee for organizing such an event. It shows that the spirit of
Labrador Heritage is alive and well, and we all look forward to the running of
the race next year, which will be held in the Town of Makkovik.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to offer congratulations to a group known as Tourism Elliston.
Tourism Elliston was recently award the very prestigious Doug Wheeler Award by
the provincial government. It is an award that recognizes a group or an
individual's contribution to tourism here in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, Tourism Elliston is probably a group of people from whom we can
all take a great lesson. Back when the Northern cod moratorium was brought
about, this community was in decline, and responsible people in the community
looked around to see what they had in their community that they could provide to
be a focal point to keep the community vibrant. They looked around and saw that
they had root cellars. In fact, 135 root cellars today is documented as a focal
point in that particular community. They became known as the root cellar capital
of the world. Last year, in excess of 20,000 people visited the Town of Elliston
to look at their root cellars.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
MR. FITZGERALD: If I could be allowed, Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, today they have what is known as the Puffin
Festival, and that takes place from July 13 to July 20 of this particular year.
The highlight of that festivity is the serving of a Jiggs' dinner. The Jiggs'
dinner is being provided with vegetables that were grown by volunteers in the
communities, kept in the root cellars over winter, and served as a big festival
for that week.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: I am certain every Member of this House of Assembly joins
with me today in offering congratulations to Tourism Elliston.
Thank you.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to inform the House of an important provincial pilot project,
"Clear the Air - It's Ours to Share, Smoke Free Spaces", to address
the issue of our youth and the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This
initiative is a joint project with Health Canada and the Province's
Departments of Health and Community Services and Education.
Mr. Speaker, Health Canada reports that last year 31 per cent of children in
Newfoundland and Labrador were regularly exposed to second-hand smoke in the
home and face health risks as a result of this exposure. Exposure to second-hand
smoke also causes more than 8,000 childhood illnesses each year in this
Province, and over 100 people in this Province die each year as a result of
diseases related to second-hand smoke.
Nine provincial schools are using a Smoke-Free Spaces Activist Toolkit CD Rom
to engage youth in taking action to create smoke-free environments in their
schools, homes and communities.
This resource provides young people with the inspiration and information they
require to become effective advocates for creating smoke-free environments. All
schools have participate in a one day orientation workshop and a brainstorm
session on potential action plans to be implemented in their school or
community.
To date, some of the priority areas that youth have identified include
developing a smoke-free school policy, educating parents and family members
about the benefits of creating smoke-free homes and creating smoke-free spaces
in local public buildings.
The project will also build on and support current actions being taken in our
Province to create smoke-free public places, workplaces and homes.
Mr. Speaker, the activities that youth in our schools have engaged in include
erecting signs throughout the community with messages about the benefits of a
smoke-free environment and writing a play to deliver messages to younger
students and parents.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of the House will join me in congratulating
our youth who are participating in this pilot project. The project is a valuable
resource in not only reducing the harmful effects of second-hand smoke but also
empowers our young population.
Mr. Speaker, in our Blue Print for the Future this government made a
commitment to coordinate policies and spending in ways that lead to a healthier
population and less demand for treatment of acute and chronic illnesses. Clear
the Air - It's Ours to Share, Smoke-Free Spaces Pilot Project allows our
youth to play an active role in promoting a healthier population as well as
investing in a healthier future.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank the minister
for a copy of her statement in advance.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are all there for clean air and
eliminating smoke in the workplace and in public buildings. Actually, it was
this government, when we were in power, that led the initiative to establish the
Teen Tobacco Team which was a team of young people who were doing a lot of work,
role models for the Province, promoting a smoke-free lifestyle in schools and
amongst our peers, and the program itself was very successful.
It was also a Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, that led the cause to bring
legislation into the House to eliminate smoking in food establishments and to
have smoke-free public buildings throughout the Province. All this was done, Mr.
Speaker, as a deterrent to eliminate smoke in the public and to reduce the
health affects on our population.
We also looked at other things, Mr. Speaker, that were a deterrent in terms
of increasing the age that youth would be when they purchase cigarettes. As I
said, we did all of these things in partnership with the Alliance for the
Control of Tobacco.
Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS JONES: By leave, to conclude my comments, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MS JONES: I want to say to the minister that I am more concerned today
with the abuse of prescription drugs amongst our teens and our youth. I can only
hope that the minister will use the same aggressiveness and look at a campaign
that would deal with prescription drugs and the growing problem that is out
there in our schools and amongst our young people today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I also want to congratulate and urge those involved in this project to work
very diligently to encourage families, in particular, not to smoke in their
homes. The figure of 31 per cent of children being regularly exposed to
secondhand smoke in the home is certainly a high one, and anything that can be
done to lower that would be desirable.
I would ask this government to reconsider its position taken in the last
election that it would not ban smoke in the workplace of many, many hundreds of
people who work in bars and drinking establishments, Mr. Speaker, where they are
exposed to second-hand smoke.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: - with a level of carcinogens and poisons in the air that
would not be tolerated in an industrial work site. This is a question of
workplace health and safety and one that I think this government can lead by
example if we want young people and people in our homes not to smoke in front of
their children because of the dangers, and we should do the same thing for our
workers who happen to work in bars or drinking establishments.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to update this House on the measures
taken by my officials to enforce highway safety in this Province.
This department has shown it is serious when it comes to ensuring the
vehicles travelling on the Province's highways meet National Safety Code
Standards.
In December, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspended the privileges of two
companies to operate trucks on provincial highways. The impact of the two
suspensions has been considerable. It has resulted in carriers improving their
safety measures and requesting information on how to become compliant.
Government has since agreed to a staggered release of vehicles in the case of
one of the two suspended companies. The company provided the Registrar with a
detailed safety plan and demonstrated a willingness to follow it. The company
has also hired a safety officer to implement the plan.
I am pleased to inform this House that the company has cooperated with the
Registrar and additional vehicles will soon be released as part of the
mutually-agreed upon arrangement.
Mr. Speaker, highway safety is a high priority of this House. The Motor
Registration Division is undertaking broader investigations of carriers and
inspection stations based on the results of routine inspections and official
complaints.
As a result of this crackdown, a number of charges have been laid against
Official Inspection Stations for issuing slips without properly inspecting the
vehicles. We are also publicizing the actions we have taken to send a message
that our staff are out there enforcing the law.
Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to working with commercial carriers
to ensure the Province's highways are safe.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all I would to thank the minister for her advanced copy. I have
dealt with a number of these companies in the past and I realize that most
trucking companies in the Province are in compliance with the rules and
regulation. First of all, it makes good business sense and, of course, the other
part of it is public safety, safety equipment and drivers. However, it is
important to have enforcement and monitoring mechanisms in place.
The minister's department not only facilitates public safety on our roads
but also drinking water, restaurants, elevators, and other public inspections.
I hope when the Budget comes down tomorrow there will be no cuts to these
services, and also there is enough work in the Budget tomorrow for these
trucking companies to have their people back to work all around the Province.
That is one of the big concerns that I have right now.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is very important to enforce these safety rules. There should be no
competitive advantage for one firm to operate unsafe vehicles and save money. It
is very important that we have a safe level playing field for all commercial
vehicles in the Province and truckers. Also, that applies to older vehicles
which seem to have permission to run on the highways without inspections being
done. I know that government was talking about reintroducing motor vehicle
inspections after a certain age. I hope they do that. I know the minister did
not say that right now but perhaps that is part of her plan to reintroduce the
mandatary motor vehicle inspections (inaudible) in place before.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have stated in this House over and over again that the
Premier, in our view, has bungled the negotiations with the public sector
unions. I owe him an apology, I believe. I have now come to realize that, in
fact, as the Federation of Labour would say, the Premier actually had this
planned all along. So, maybe it is not bungled. Why else would he unilaterally
announce a wage freeze without consulting with the public sector unions and why
else would he continuously negotiate in public and send warnings to the unions
over the airwaves? Now on the weekend, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has confirmed on
the eve of a potential strike that there would be up to 1,500 jobs eliminated
from the public service.
The question is, if the Premier was committed to avoiding a strike, how does
he feel that the slashing of up to 1,500 jobs two days before a strike deadline
will improve the chances of reaching an agreed to collective agreement a couple
of days from now?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First, let me state categorically with respect to the question that the
statement that 1,500 jobs will be slashed is inaccurate, completely untrue and
erroneous. That is just not a correct statement.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition is
not seeing fit, at a time like this, to be constructive. As a matter of fact, it
is unfortunate that he sees fit to stand over there and criticize - of all
people, the Leader of the Opposition - together with all government members
opposite who actually created this mess. It is overwhelmingly hypocritical and
it is very shameful.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: So, Mr. Speaker, if he could, I would ask for his
assistance at this particular point in time, at a very delicate point in time.
He indicated, at one point - he must have forgotten - that he was going to
cooperate with this government. If he remembers during the doctors' strike,
that the Opposition, at that particular time - which was us - was very helpful
and did nothing to inflame the situation during a very delicate time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are trying to be exactly that, very helpful, because the Premier has made
a mess of it, I guess. Maybe I should not have apologized. He really has bungled
it completely.
Mr. Speaker, it is the media reports from officials of the Newfoundland
Association of Public and Private Employees who say they were briefed on the
weekend, and they are in the media talking about, up to 1,500 jobs going to be
slashed that they were told about. Mr. Speaker, the Premier suggests he does not
consider that to be massive layoffs. That is his defense, that is not a massive
number. He if does not consider it massive, Mr. Speaker, how is he going to
explain it to any of those 1,500 who are going to find the impacts themselves?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to complete his question.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
How is he going to explain it to any of the 1,500 who lose their jobs, or to
any of the people who are going to be without the services they and their
families are currently provided by those up to 1,500, the negative impacts that
this kind of job loss will have in Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I also state, as the Premier said, that his numbers are absolutely
inaccurate. On Saturday, I met with the presidents of NAPE and CUPE in reference
to our Budget and I gave them the courtesy of a heads-up on numbers of impacts
on layoffs that would occur as a result of the Budget. These numbers are very,
very small compared to the number that the Leader of the Opposition is stating.
If he has his facts, what he considers facts, he has them wrong. He should go
back and try to get the right facts and come back to this House with true
information.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We would gladly get the facts right. The fact, as we understand it, is that
the Premier stated to NAPE President Mr. Leo Puddester, during the election, on
an open line program, just on the eve of the election, that there would, in
fact, be no layoffs, N O, zero, layoffs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: That was taken for granted by the President of NAPE to be a
statement that he would gladly tell to his memberships, that there would be no
layoffs. As a matter of fact, the same person, the same president who is trying
to negotiate a contract today, is saying in the public that he feels betrayed by
the Premier, and the Premier, Mr. Speaker, is being described in the public by
these same people as deceitful Danny.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to complete his question.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I appreciate the Finance Minister trying to explain what massive
means. What is it that a massive layoff means to this Premier, that he forgot to
tell anybody prior to the election, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition again
reverts to name calling and personal attacks, but that is his style and I do not
expect anything more. He also has a very short memory. I will tell him what
massive layoffs mean.
Last year in the House of Assembly, one year ago, on March 24, 2003, when he
was Premier of the Province, he was boasting, saying, the Budget that did lay
off some 2,500 people, I do believe, if I am not mistaken, I am probably the
only person on this side of the House who was in the Cabinet at that point in
time.
He was proud of laying off 2,500 people. That is a massive layoff. We will
not have any massive layoffs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I understand it is a topic that the Premier is really sensitive
to because, of course, he has been caught telling one story before the election
and a completely different one now, Mr. Speaker. That is the fact of the matter;
everybody in the Province knows it. Everybody in the Province as well, Mr.
Speaker, is looking for the new approach, not a rehash of what happened ten
years ago, or fifteen years ago, or twenty years ago.
Mr. Speaker, the question is this: The caucus itself awoke to news this
morning that they heard for the first time, of up to 1,500 job losses. They
campaigned on no job losses, Mr. Speaker. What advice is the Premier giving to
his caucus members about going back to their constituents and explaining the
difference between a promise of no job losses and 1,500 jobs that might
disappear as of tomorrow?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: There will be no massive layoffs, Mr. Speaker, I repeat
that again, but there will be massive debt, because that is what the hon.
gentleman opposite has left in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I will give you a cumulative record of
massive layoffs when the Liberal government was in power.
In 1991, there were 2,500 job cuts. In 1992, there were 600 job cuts. In
1995, there were 475 job cuts. In 1996, there were 959 job cuts. In 1997: 468
teachers. In 1998: 225 teachers. In 1999: 182 teachers. In 2000: 100 teaching
positions. In 2001: Hydro positions, health board positions, policemen. In 2002:
208 teaching positions. Those are massive cuts, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is really unfortunate that the Premier who got elected on a campaign of a
new approach, with solutions for Newfoundland and Labrador, wants to live in the
past. We did all those things and imagine how massive the debt might be today if
we had not done exactly what you just described, being very responsible for
fifteen years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I guarantee you this, we are interested in -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition now to complete his question. The
supplementary should not need a
preamble.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The question basically is this: We do want to see a strike averted and
avoided in a couple of days, if at all possible. Every time the Premier tries to
so-call not negotiate in public, it only gets worse.
Mr. Speaker, will the Premier -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again I am reluctant to cut the member off, but if the member doesn't put a
question then the Speaker has no choice but to return the proceedings to the
other side of the House. I will let him have five to six seconds to place his
question.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The question being: Will the Premier actually get directly involved in some
constructive fashion in the next forty-eight hours or so, so that the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador don't have to go through the hardship of an
unnecessary strike, that if it does happen would have been caused by him and him
alone, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the people of our Province
that the government members and, I am certain, hon. members opposite do not want
a strike in our Province under any circumstances.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I have also made a public commitment that I will be
available to the leaders of the unions any time, any place, any duration of
time, anything that is necessary in order to achieve a settlement of this
particular labour dispute.
As well, Mr. Speaker, they are meeting as we speak, there are negotiations
going on now in a hotel in St. John's. If there is anything that needs to be
done with regard to workforce adjustment, we are doing everything we can with
regard to deployment and re-deployment of people in positions. I send a message
out to the unions, that if there is anything they want to talk about with regard
to the negotiations I am there to deal with any of these issues in detail. I
will do everything I can to avoid a strike.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Education.
When I asked the minister last week if he intended to cut 378 teaching
positions in the Budget this week he said: Wait for the Budget. The Premier didn't
wait for the Budget this morning when he talked about hundreds of people who
will receive their layoffs within the next few weeks.
Again I ask the minister: How many teachers will he slash in tomorrow's
Budget?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is obviously quite anxious. It is a
legitimate question, but again he is simply premature. In approximately
twenty-four hours from now the hon. member opposite and the public of the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will have answers and explanations to not
only this question but, indeed, any question that is related to the budgetary
process.
I say to the hon. member: It is a fair question, however, twenty-four hours
too early.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) born ahead of his time.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't see how the members opposite can find the humour in laying off
teachers tomorrow, like the Minister of Fisheries was talking about today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, again the minister says he cannot talk about
layoffs but the Premier can.
My question is for the minister, again, with regard to teachers doing the
jobs of student assistants during a strike. We know what the school board's
position is on this. We know what the NLTA's position is. They will not do
that work. What is the minister's position?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the question by the hon. member assumes and
presumes that in approximately forty-eight to fifty-six to fifty-eight hours
that we will have labour unrest in this Province. I say that is not the case,
and members on this side of the House prefer to remain optimistic that this will
not occur -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: - and in the unfortunate event that it should occur, or
it does occur, we will respond appropriately to the types of questions that are
being asked. I say to the hon. member opposite, let's remain optimistic and
let's hope that we will not be in a situation to address the very nature of
the question that is being asked.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate
& Fogo.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I say in the event of a strike: Will the minister overrule the school
boards or is he trying to force the NLTA on the streets like the Premier is
trying to force NAPE and CUPE?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There has been some debate, Mr. Speaker, on this issue but members on this
side of the House, we fully put faith and trust into the teachers of this
Province to ensure that they will conduct themselves in the appropriate way. I
wish to repeat, Mr. Speaker, the question is a hypothetical one in nature and we
will wait and see and hope that we are not in the position to address the nature
of the question asked.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Can the minister tell the House
why the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, for which he is responsible, is out
doing riot training just days before a possible strike here? This is no
coincidence. I ask the minister: Why is this Administration provoking a strike
instead of preventing and preserving public safety?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I can tell all hon. members that this
government is not provoking a strike. This government is making every effort to
negotiate in good faith with NAPE and CUPE to try to reach a deal that is in the
best interest of all the people of this Province.
With respect to RNC training; RNC training is ongoing and this government
will make sure that RNC have the resources and the manpower it needs in order to
train and have the best training that all police forces will need in this
Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the figure in the public domain is that $50,000 indeed is being
spent for new riot gear and thousands of dollars being spent on training
personnel imported from Ontario to do the riot training. There was no money in
this year's Budget for this training. This is new money.
I ask the minister: Where did you find the money, and who authorized it to be
spent for this purpose at this time?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: I can tell the hon. member, while I am the Minister of
Justice, there is going to be training for the police in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: On a final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the members opposite, you do not have to look over here to decide
who is the team that brings in the paddy wagons. We know where they sit on the
government side.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, my final question for the minister -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask members to keep their noise and their shouting down. It is impossible
to hear the question.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister, my final question: How can you, Minister, justify
spending $50,000 on riot gear when we do not have proper cars for the RNC to
drive and they are driving rental units? Who changed the priority to take the
money that you did not have and now you are spending it on riot training?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: The hon. member and his government did not provide the
resources for vehicles for the RNC in this Province. This government will
rectify that situation.
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 Premier. On October 17, four days before the
Provincial Election of October 21, the Premier said, and I quote: You have seen
over the last couple of years that, in fact, there has been cuts in the public
sector and cuts in teacher allocations in our Province under a Grimes'
government, when Roger Grimes was Premier. So I do not stand for layoffs and
cuts in the public service. This was said to the President of NAPE who, at the
end of the exchange, said: I will take your word for it.
I want to ask the Premier: Is his word today the same as it was on October
17, four days before the election?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that I never
stand for layoffs. I just simply do not. Nobody wants to create layoffs. Nobody
wants to cause layoffs. Unfortunately, I can tell the hon. member, we have
inherited a mess from the hon. members opposite, that we did not anticipate, and
when we were briefed after we took over government, and understood what was in
store for us, we commissioned an independent study, an independent audit, that
had to be done. It was not, in fact, an audit. It was a study done by an
independent firm, and we found out that we were facing billion dollar deficits.
We were also facing a situation where even the Leader of the Opposition has
indicated that the Province would go bankrupt if we stayed on the same course.
We had to do something, but I do not stand for layoffs; I do not like layoffs.
Unfortunately, I have no choice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The first thing the Premier also said at that time - I have said to your
members right now - is that they have job security. We do not stand for layoffs.
Mr. Speaker, will the Premier not admit that it is his flip-flop on this
issue, and his speech on January 5, with unilateral action, that is forcing the
public sector workers in this Province to take strike action tomorrow night or
Wednesday night, when the time comes, that it is his flip-flop, the fact that he
convinced people, back in October, that they had job security, that there would
be no layoffs, that caused them to vote for him and support him then, and now he
has turned his back on them and forced them into the streets? Will he not admit
that it is his actions that have done that?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, they are not on the streets yet; we do not have a strike yet. We
are working towards a resolution of this. We do not want to see a strike. I want
to make that unequivocally clear.
The other thing is, when the statement was made on January 1, that was when
we received and we had, in fact, had the final report, when we released it to
the public and indicated to the public, the people of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, that we had an extremely serious financial situation
on our hands. At that time, members of my Cabinet and members of my caucus, our
government, felt it was incumbent upon us to tell the people of the Province, as
soon as possible, what the financial situation was. We did, in fact, do that.
The other situation that had to be responded to was that, at that particular
time, the unions were out saying they wanted a 21 per cent raise. We, in all
conscience, could not allow that to go on (inaudible) -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to complete his answer.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: - that the money was available for a 21 per cent raise.
It simply was not.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Premier not admit that the report that was released on January 5
really contained no new information, with the exception of the student loan, the
student loan issue that we are debating here in this House the last couple of
days, and that really what has happened here is that this Premier has chosen,
for political reasons, to take on the public sector workers of this Province, to
try and save some money?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Nobody knows better than the hon. gentleman for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi, that I do not want to take on the public sector workers. In
fact, I took over his file when he went away as a Member of Parliament and acted
for CUPE on his behalf, while he went away, to represent the people of the
Province. He knows that I do not want to take on the public sector workers. I
have, in fact, acted for CUPE. That is in fact the situation, Mr. Speaker.
As well, if we take the suggestion that was prepared by the consultant, the
expert that was brought in by the unions, we would increase the taxes of the
people in the Province. Is that what he wants? Does he want personal income
taxes to go up? Does he want corporate taxes to go up? Does he want HST to go
up? The people of the Province do not want an increase in their taxes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my questions are on the Labrador Marine Service and they are for
the Premier, simply because, Mr. Speaker, as I have said publicly and I maintain
today, the Minister for Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs, is in
a position of conflict on this issue. After all, the minister was walking in to
his new Cabinet position at the same time as he was espousing his belief that
the Sir Robert Bond should operate out of Lewisporte and not Labrador.
Can the Premier tell me today if he and his Cabinet is prepared to overlook
the minister's position and make the proper decision to leave the Sir
Robert Bond operating at Cartwright?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, on the point of conflict of interest, I guess I
am in as much a conflict of interest as the hon. member was when she was
Parliamentary Secretary to the minister who made the decision to put the Sir
Robert Bond in Cartwright in the first place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: What cuts one way cuts another!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: I guess, Mr. Speaker, I will be in a conflict of interest
when I decide if we are going to put a dollar or two of capital road works in my
district. Ministers are always potentially in conflict of interest, but that is
silly and nonsense. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that the government
is getting on with making that decision as quickly as we can.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse
au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, again my question is for the Premier.
In a press release, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador
Affairs said, we want to have an economic foundation to our decision. Can the
Premier tell us what the economic loss will be to the people of Southern
Labrador if he makes a move to put the ferry in Lewisporte?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that government has looked
at all aspects of this question, unlike the last government, Mr. Speaker, when
they made decisions that affected all of Newfoundland and Labrador, including
Central Newfoundland and the rest of the Province. They had those reports, too,
Mr. Speaker, but those reports are still sitting on the shelves of the
Department of Transportation and Works and were never released. Mr. Speaker,
that will not happen under the watch of this government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse
au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
We are having too much noise in the Chamber and it is impossible for me to
hear the hon. member.
The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, my question is for the Premier. The Premier preaches a position of
economic prudence. It is known that leaving the ferry operating out of
Cartwright will be more economical for this government. I ask them to please
release the report, make the decision in fairness to the people of Labrador and
leave the boat in Cartwright.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and
Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we will be releasing the report. The hon.
member can have no fear about that. It is not going to sit on the shelves in the
Department of Transportation from 1996 until 2004 and still not be released.
That is not going to happen.
This government, Mr. Speaker, wants to make the best decision for the
majority of people of Labrador. That includes constituents represented by the
hon. Member for Labrador West; constituents represented by the hon. Member for
Torngat Mountains; and constituents represented by the hon. Member for Lake
Melville. Government is committed to making the best decision for the greatest
number of people in Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question today is to the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
On September 23, in The Georgian newspaper, she expressed concern
about the caseloads being unmanageable in the department. Now that she is
minister, she has complete control over what hiring is done and what is not
done. Does she still feel - using her words - that we cannot afford to stand by
and see the system fail the children of this Province? Will she replace those
positions and those that have become vacant since she came to office?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the comments being referred to by the hon. member
were not in relation to the Department of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the minister's comments and her answer. I thought she was
going to be like the rest and hide behind the budget or some report.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. BUTLER: I say to the minister, the question that I am asking, Mr.
Speaker, does refer to her department. I ask the minister: How long will it be
before she can get the applications processed on time in her department? How
many more of her employees will quit, leave on sick, annual leave and stress
leave before she takes action?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment is in the process of rolling out a computerized pay system on the
West Coast. We will continue to roll out this system, and all clients will be
served in an efficient manner.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Port de
Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On a final supplementary, I ask the minister, in comparison to the e-mail
message that was sent to the employees of her department, and I quote: We have
fallen so far behind that we need to make a concerted effort to catch up.
Clients are being compromised from a financial perspective so we need to clear
this up. I ask the minister: Will she stand in this House and tell us what
success has been made to overcome this problem to date?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment that following the e-mail
regarding a backlog of work, I have been assured by the officials in the
department that the matter has been rectified.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
During Question Period we did have one comment that the Chair finds it
necessary to intercede. A comment was made by the Leader of the Opposition. He
used the words: deceitful Danny. While that, certainly, may have some expression
that might have been used in some other places, it is totally inappropriate in
the House of Assembly for these expressions to be used, and I would ask the hon.
member if he would stand and retract that statement.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Respectful of your ruling, I retract the statement. I do not know how you are
going to get it off the signs but I will retract it in here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
When the Chair asks that a comment be retracted, it has to be retracted
without comment and without conditions. I would ask the hon. member if he would
apologize to the House because, obviously, in that particular exchange there
were some comments made afterwards that are entirely inappropriate.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I retract the statements and respect the ruling of the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into
a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the
Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 12.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make reference to this. Basically, this
Supplementary Supply Bill is for $1.4 million. It is within the vote of Youth
Services and Post-Secondary Education, the original department. It is 100 per
cent recoverable federal money, and the purpose of this is funding to
post-secondary institutions here for training federally-sponsored students, and
there is a full recovery.
I ask leave to have this bill introduced today.
MR. SPEAKER: The minister, I believe, thought we were under Notices of
Motion, so we will put it under that category.
Are there any further notices of motion?
Answers to questions for which notice has been given?
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if we could revert to Presenting Reports by
Standing and Special Committees, to table a few reports today. If not, I could
do it the next day, if agreed.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave, we could go back to Presenting Reports by Standing
and Special Committees.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is with pleasure that I table the annual reports of the Atlantic Lottery
Corporation, the C.A. Pippy Park Commission, and the Newfoundland and Labrador
Municipal Financing Corporation.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador profit distribution of $106 million from Atlantic Lottery Corporation,
and the C.A. Pippy Park has also now completed its master plan which will soon
be made available to the public and will set the direction for C.A. Pippy Park
in the years to come.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: It is unfilled at the moment. I will let the hon. member
know as soon as it is filled. (Inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this House on behalf of my
constituents to present a petition for the Williams Harbour Road. I did present
a petition similar to this about a week ago. I will read the prayer of the
petition. It says:
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,
in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents in the
District of Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway from Red Bay to Cartwright is
now complete with access roads to St. Lewis, Charlottetown and Pinsent Arm; and
WHEREAS there is over $100 million remaining in the Labrador Transportation
Fund; and
WHEREAS the people of Williams Harbour have a sustainable community that will
be open to many new opportunities and prosperity once connected to the
Trans-Labrador Highway; and
WHEREAS government must recognize the socio-economic impacts in regions and
communities like Williams Harbour and not solely on the economic recovery
analysis presented by consultants;
WHEREFORE the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should start building
the road to Williams Harbour in 2004.
Mr. Speaker, when I presented this petition and spoke to it a week ago in the
House of Assembly, I outlined for hon. members where Williams Harbour is - one
of the smaller, more remote communities in Southern Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, this community is approximately twenty kilometres from a main
highway system, and at the present time government is subsidizing air services
to this particular community, subsidizing marine services to this particular
community, which they are prepared, Mr. Speaker, to trade off for a road
network. It was not possible to do this until this particular time, simply
because it is only now that the highway has been completed into Pinsent Arm,
allowing them to have access within twenty kilometres.
Mr. Speaker, we also know what the cost of this infrastructure is. It is very
little cost, I say to the government. Actually no cost, Mr. Speaker, if you want
to look at it, to the government, because the cost of the road itself would
probably be less than $5 million. If you look at what it has cost to build all
the other roads into the other communities in Labrador, you want to take an
averaging factor, you are looking at probably around $5 million, maybe even
less, to have this particular road completed into Williams Harbour. If you look
at the report that was tabled by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board a
couple of days ago with regard to the Labrador Transportation Initative Fund,
Mr. Speaker, we see that fund in the past year earned an investment income of
over $4 million.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about enough money accruing on the fund right
now, the Labrador fund, belonging to the people of Labrador, the people of
Williams Harbour and all the rest of the communities in Labrador, Mr. Speaker.
We are seeing an investment accruing in that fund that will allow us to move
forward with this infrastructure, so it is no longer a decision -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS JONES: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is not an issue of having to take funds out of
the Newfoundland and Labrador Treasury. It is an issue of: Is this government
willing to spend the Labrador fund in the priority areas that Labradorians
identify? Because the Combined Councils of Labrador, at their last AGM, approved
a motion supporting this road network for the community of Williams Harbour,
unanimous, amongst all communities in Labrador. So, I say to the minister and I
say to his government, do the right thing, do the honourable thing, and provide
the infrastructure and the funding to build this road into Williams Harbour.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay- Cape la Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is my third petition on behalf of the Bay d'Espoir region
to see improvements and expansions to the Bay d'Espoir Medical Clinic located
in St. Alban's. I will read the prayer again:
WHEREAS there is a definite need for improvements and expansions to the Bay d'Espoir
Medical Clinic located in St. Alban's; and
WHEREAS work on this facility has been announced and tendered by the previous
government but work has since been put on hold by the current government;
THEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to see this very important work on this health care facility
proceed without further delay.
Mr. Speaker, I have been here in this House representing that part of my
district since 1996, and I think this is the first time that I have seen every
community in the Bay d'Espoir region unanimously supporting this particular
facility to be upgraded. As a said, I think in one of the other petitions that I
presented on this here, many, many times you see community rivalry where one
community does not want to see it go in their community but go somewhere else.
This is not the case here. Everybody in that particular region knows the
advantage of having the improvements made to this clinic is very, very important
to the people in the Bay d'Espoir region. We are so far removed from the
mainstream, like in the Bay d'Espoir area. It takes about two-and-a-half hours
to get there. This clinic is in need of much, much improvement and expansion and
I would hope that come tomorrow this could be one of the projects that would be
approved for the people in the Bay d'Espoir region.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself in to a Committee of the
Whole to consider Bill 1,
An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
"An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act." (Bill 1)
CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Should clause 11 carry?
The hon. the minister of Grand Falls-Buchans - the hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I really appreciate the fact that you called me the minister for Grand
Falls-Buchans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an amendment to clause 11
of the bill,
section 14(4). I perhaps should say that
section 14.4(1) currently
reads: that there shall be three directors on the board of directors of the
corporation. The directors of the board shall be, by virtue of their positions:
deputy minister of the department, who shall be the chairperson of the board;
Deputy Minister of the Department of Finance, and the Secretary of Treasury
Board. The board shall not be disabled from acting, by any reason, of temporary
vacancy in its numbers. The board shall exercise all of the powers and duties of
the corporation, and shall administer and manage the business of the
corporation.
Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace
district, that clause 11 of Bill 1 be amended, in proposed
section 14.4(2) as
follows: by adding (
d) president of the federation of students or their
designate, (
e) a representative from post-secondary institutions.
Mr. Chairman, my reason for proposing this amendment is, as it reads now the
current bill does not have any provision for student -
CHAIR: Order, please!
I say to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, maybe the Chair should determine
whether the amendment is in order first.
MS THISTLE: Fine, thank you.
CHAIR: It is moved by the Chair that the amendment is in order.
I recognize the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Now that we have determined that the amendment is in order, I would like to
speak to that amendment.
Listed in their bill was representation internally from government officials,
but not from student representation. We all know, Mr. Chairman, that this bill
today is all about whom? It is about students in our Province. Despite the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board accepting the phony report
by Michael Gourley that our administration had, in fact, proper financial
figures, it was spot on.
What we are doing here today, Mr. Chairman, is passing a bill in haste, for
one reason. That reason is to inflate the deficit so the deficit will be what
you want it to be by March 30. In effect, this timing has no significance for
the students of our Province. We are passing this bill today because it has to
be done at some point.
I will read from the Minister of Education's news release dated March 22.
He says, "It is good news for students and taxpayers..." Is this good
news for taxpayers that we have to add this to our books? We are here today
because we have no choice in the matter. We have no choice. We have to accept
the student loan portfolio because the banks are getting out of the business.
The actual artificial date of March 30 has no relevance. Students will not be
affected one way or the other if this bill is passed today, tomorrow, April 1 or
beyond. They still have to pay back the money, Mr. Chairman.
Now, getting back to the amendment at hand. The amendment at hand asks for
student representation on this board. The Student Loan Corporation is made up of
officials from government. Some would say: What place is there for a student on
this board? Our current student aid appeals committee has the (inaudible) of the
Canadian Federation of Students on it. The last revamp of our student loan
program, which occurred in August, 2002, happened because students came to
government - the previous administration - and told us the concerns that they
had. Are you going to set up a board that is basically about students in this
Province, students and their loans, all policies connected to student loan pay
backs - wouldn't it seem honourable and the right thing to do to include
student representation? That can be at the board's choice. I am just
recommending that somebody from the Federation of Students be included or the
post-secondary education body itself.
When you look at the Canadian Federation of Students, they bring with them
expertise. Whenever a recommendation was made on their behalf to the former
administration they came to us with their homework done. They have available to
them national organization and the expertise that comes with it.
I ask this new government, who is harping on a new approach, wouldn't that
new approach include the representation of a student? I cannot understand, for
the life of me, I see the amendments that have come forward today from Bill 1,
and you have not even looked at this amendment or included it in your bill. I
can't believe it, but, then again, why should I be surprised. In the first 100
days or your office you gutted Youth and Post-Secondary Education. That
department is gone. Why would you want student representation? They might tell
you something that needs to be done with student loans, but you don't want to
hear that.
Here you are saying that as a legal entity the Student Loan Corporation will
become the sole owner, the dispenser and the collector of all provincial student
loans. You have not given to the students what your internal operation will be
for actual collection of default loans, loans that are in arrears. Students don't
have that information.
My colleague, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, brought forward a very
important amendment last week. These are the kinds of issues that students want
to discuss. They want to know that their loan won't be negatively impacted by
us, as a Province, taking over that portfolio from the Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce. What you have effectively done, you have shut out the users of the
system, the students themselves. I don't know how you can stand in your places
today and want quick passage of this bill without having student representation.
The Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne stood in his place on March 22 in this
House and he said that students have lobbied for this integration to take place,
and that could be no further from the truth. I spoke on a couple of occasions in
recent days to the President of the Canadian Federation of Students and they
told me that they did not have any lobbying or any consultation. They were
present at your media release, and that was it.
As a new government that is trying to come across to the general population
as having a new approach and a new way of doing business, let me tell you, for
the people of this Province who are watching this telecast this afternoon, you
want to take over $220 million of a student loan portfolio, have it run by
bureaucrats within government and let students know nothing. They won't be
part of any policy changes, any improvements or any affect it is going to have
on student in this Province. It will be run by bureaucrats and they will report
to the minister. Now, that, in my opinion, is a closed shop on the items that
are very important to students in this Province.
I don't know how you could come across and deny students' rights of being
on this Student Loan Corporation. If I were a student in this Province today I
would demand it, I would be marching up to your office this afternoon and
saying: Mr. Minister, how can you put $220 million on the taxpayers of this
Province without having representation from the students, the user in this
Province? I do not know how you can actually stand here - you brought this bill
to the House. You did not deny the reasons. This side of the House over here
said, you are only rushing it through to inflate a deficit figure. You did not
stand - not one of you - in your place and deny that was not the case.
Here today is a most important aspect of it, having student representation,
and you are not even going to entertain a request for that, from students right
around this Province. You are going to say: Do as I say. Basically, the heavy
hand of government wants no input from students, no input whatsoever. Just do
what I say.
You have not come out with any kind of information for students that is going
to give them any assurance that you will be working in their best interests. In
fact, you do not even care. You started out when you gutted the Department of
Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. What is coming next, in the Budget
tomorrow, I would ask the Minister of Education?
You are saying here in your news release: It is good news for students and
taxpayers. Can you imagine? As government, we will be able to provide better
service while improving the delivery of debt management tools.
What, in your opinion, is debt management tools? Is the collecting going to
happen right here in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, or are you going
to have loan sharks on the mainland who are going to call up our students and
threaten them? Every day of the week I am getting calls from my constituents and
all over the Province talking about the heavy hand of collectors who are
currently calling people who are behind in their student loans.
Now, you have not shared that information with any of the students in our
Province. So, are the bureaucrats within government going to be collectors as
well? Are you going to probably deny someone their driver's licence? Are you
going to try to tap it on source? Are you going to deny people their drivers'
licences, or moose licences, or any services that government presently provide?
This is more of a reason why we need students on this board, because all you
are going to do is have a group of bureaucrats reporting to the minister with no
thought as to student representation at all on this board.
You know right now that the federal government has powers to intercede and
attach people's income tax refunds. What is it you are not telling students
today, Mr. Minister? What is it you are not telling students? Are you going to
use that same power within our provincial government to intercede and attach any
kind of refunds of monies going to students in this Province? Are you going to -
CHAIR: Order, please!
I remind the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her time has expired.
MS THISTLE: If I could just have about thirty seconds, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
CHAIR: By leave.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I sit down today, I want to ask the Minister of Education - this is an
important amendment. There is no reason to leave students out of this equation.
There is every reason to include them, and if you believe in fairness and
balance and a new approach, I ask you to include this amendment and include
students on that board.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I was not going to get up but I feel compelled after listening
to the member and the absolute dribble that I have just listened to. First of
all, for distinction, we are not implementing a board or putting a board
together today. What we are putting in place is a Crown corporation, much like a
corporation enacted by a piece of legislation in this House, like Hydro
Corporation, for example, the Housing Corporation, the Liquor Corporation. To
say that students are not going to be involved, let me tell the member this:
This is a corporation that will deal with financial transactions. It does not
set student aid policy or policy for government. The government does that, in
consultation with students I might add.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Secondly, Mr. Chair, let me say this: How is it that the
member can stand up and say that we are shutting students out when she knows -
she was the Minister of Post-Secondary and advanced studies - that there is
student representation on an appeal board already, so any issues that will arise
from this corporation that may be grieved or considered of a grievous nature,
where will they be or where will they end up? They will end up before an appeal
board where a student representative already sits.
Secondly, on that point, how can the member who used to be the former
minister say that this government is ignoring students altogether when it is our
intention, this minister, on the direction provided by him and the direction
provided by the Premier, where we will actually be increasing student
representation on the Board of Regents at Memorial, for example, giving them a
larger say?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Giving students a larger say. Now, let me say this, Mr
Chair. I know what it is like to pay back a student loan. When I first got
elected in this House in 1993, I was, I think, a year-and-a-half into a
nine-and-a-half year payback plan. I borrowed $26,000 and I paid pack $36,000 or
$37,000 overall, so I understand clearly what it is like to have a big debt on
your head when you are just starting out in life, when you are trying to move
ahead, if you have just been married or you are just trying to get your first
house, your first car, trying to establish your credit rating, all of those
things; but I say to the members opposite, in all good conscience and honesty,
with respect to the change that we are making with this bill today, that
government will be a far better arbiter and manager of the student loan
portfolio than CIBC or Toronto-Dominion or the Bank of Nova Scotia ever could or
would be, and I believe that students understand and recognize that fact as
well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: The member goes on to impute motives on government, saying
that we do not care; we gutted the post-secondary education department. The only
thing that we gutted was a view and a management to have whoever was in
government, to have them in Cabinet. We took a responsible approach, the Premier
took a responsible approach, reduced the size of Cabinet, to send a direction
and a signal to everybody, but what else was gutted? There is still a deputy
minister. The divisions associated with post-secondary are still involved. The
staff that you worked with are still there, member, so what is gutted? The only
thing that is gutted is an approach that would see everybody in the Cabinet
leading up to an election. What we see now is a responsible approach in how this
government plans to manage the affairs of the Province. That is what is at stake
here.
The member said that we are rushing this bill through with haste, that it
does not matter to a student today if we pass it today, or a student tomorrow,
and that nobody on this side disagreed with why we were doing it, because we
want to inflate the financial figures for this year.
Now look, first of all, that is not true. It may be your opinion and I defend
your right to share it or to have it or to put it forward, but the fact of the
matter is this: The government before us, who now sit in opposition, were
advised in June of 2003 that this measure would have to be taken. In June of
2003. The election was not called until October, 2003. Why didn't the
government of the day make that known? That is a question that they have failed
to answer. Did they make it known in July or in August or in September? Did they
make it known during the election? No, none of that. In the member's point of
view she said, what is it? This is not good news for taxpayers. I suppose it is
not good news for taxpayers.
There is, as my colleague would say, an insight into the obvious. The fact of
the matter is, the reason why we are moving towards it, and the reason why we
are doing it immediately, is because we feel that it is necessary to be done.
Why wait? The fact of the matter is, if this passes today, that on the first of
April that if one student or 100 students or 1,000 students or 10,000 students -
beginning in April - send in their student aid application, then by gollies we
will have a corporation in place the first of April to deal with it, when the
CIBC have completed abdicated their responsibility on the thirty-first of March.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: So, if you want to play with numbers or you want to accuse
us of playing with them, let's be clear. Yes, we are going to assume $220
million on a loan portfolio. Fifty-five million is really what is going to be
impacted in this year's Budget, and if you want to get on a pedestal and say
that we are doing it because of that, and that your numbers would look better
next year, be my guest and say it, but the fact of the matter is, come April 1,
this government is committed to having a corporation in place that will serve
the interests of the people that we are trying to serve, which is the students
themselves.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I take it from what the previous speaker said, he would be very happy if we
passed this bill on April 1, because then we would have a corporation on April 1
that could do just the thing that the speaker, the Government House Leader,
wants us to do. So, on April 1, if a student comes and files his application
MR. E. BYRNE: Would you like me to clarify it for you?
A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HARRIS: - if a student comes and files his application, the Minister
of Education can take it and say: we have a corporation passed today.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: It is clear that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi
needs some clarification. I think Hansard will bear out to what I said, that no
matter what you want to say in terms of the financial numbers, on April 1,
because we pass this bill today - CIBC are getting out of the loan business on
March 31. That is the result of this bill, why we are hoping to pass it today,
and it will be ready for April 1. That is the point that I make.
CHAIR: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think there was a similar argument about when Confederation took place,
whether it took place one minute before midnight on March 31 or one minute after
midnight on April 1.
Mr. Chairman, if what the government really wants is an operating corporation
on April 1, we can certainly pass this bill on April 1, but I know they want it
passed today. I do know that they want it passed before the end of this year
because that $55 million, which we talked about before - the $55 million which
is an allowance for doubtful accounts, is the technical terms, Mr. Chairman -
$55 million of projected defaulting student loan debt that this government is
taking over as part of that portfolio.
We seen the other day, Mr. Chairman, that a good portion of that, almost 52
per cent of that, results from student loan debt from the private college system
that we have been so critical of in terms of what it does, in terms of taking
large amounts of money from students for tuition and leaving them with very
significant debts, which so many of them are unable to pay off because of the
enormous debt they have compared to the amount of money that they are able to
make, but that is not the point I am rising to make today, Mr. Chairman.
The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans has proposed that the Canadian Federation
of Students have a representative on the board here. I want to talk about the
Canadian Federation of Students. They played a very significant role over the
last, perhaps, ten years in this Province in fighting for the needs of students,
in fighting against a trend that has occurred across this country, from one end
of the country to the other, but also, and significantly here, Mr. Chairman,
where we have fewer opportunities for students graduating to get jobs and pay
off student loans. We have seen the student loan debt rise by over 300 per cent
from 1989, when it was approximately $8,000 for a student leaving a four year
university program with carrying a debt load of something in the order, on the
average, of $8,000. That is now well over $25,000, Mr. Chairman, and that
happened in a fairly short period of time.
The Canadian Federation of Students fought very hard under a series of
leaders who challenged this government's assumptions about student aid; who
fought minister after Minister of Education to try and change the student loan
program to a needs based grants program to try and get better programs for
remission of student aid. The previous government introduced a Student Aid Loans
Remission Program that was so ineffective that hardly anybody qualified for it
and hardly anybody was able to take advantage of it.
There were some changes made, I will have to say, in the last year or so of
the previous government, to make things a little bit easier in terms of student
loan remissions but still not effective, Mr. Chairman, and still not where we
want it to be. There may be a streamline system to come into place as a result
of this new system, but what I wonder, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not the same
kind of flexibility is going to be there in terms of policy? Is this government
going to have any ability to bring about changes that may be desirable for
students in this Province and the circumstances of students of this Province,
that they will not be able to implement because they are tied to this system
with the other government? Perhaps the minister can respond to that because that
could be a very significant and important reason to have student representation
on this board.
Mr. Chairman, I know the point made by the previous speaker, that this is not
a policy making board. This is not a - it is a Crown corporation but not a
corporation that makes policy and carries out various alternatives and can make
decisions as to how the Student Aid Program is going to be designed. I do not
think that is an (inaudible) to this corporation. I think this corporation is
essentially a technical corporation that passes out money in accordance with
regulations passed by government.
If government is unwilling, and I gather they are, to include a student along
with the three deputy ministers, because of the nature of the corporation, can
the minister tell us where the student input is going to come from? Where is the
student input going to come from in terms of policy? What mechanisms are going
to be in place? What boards? What committees? What detailed consultation is
there going to be with the students of this Province through their
representatives on the Canadian Federation of Students? They have done a
terrific job. They have been terrific advocates. They are ceaseless in their
work on this, and they have brought a lot to the table in terms of understanding
the impact of student aid policies on students. They have been very involved in
appeals. They have been very involved in advocacy on behalf of students who have
run (inaudible) the policies of the Student Aid Division. What I want to know is
if the government is saying no to this amendment, where is there going to be the
input that is desirable and needed from the students of this Province who are
most affected, and particularly the representatives in the Canadian Federation
of Students? I wonder if the minister can address that problem?
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to take a few moments, if I might, to respond to this amendment
that has been put forward, and I trust it will not be dribble, as has been
suggested of another member here. I hope I can add something to the debate. The
amendment, as I understand it, is ruled to be in order, so I would think it
sufficient to comment on it.
I think it is a good amendment, and I think so for a number of reasons. I
would preface my remarks by saying, just because you have not done something in
the past does not take away the need to decide if we ought to do it on a
go-forward basis. We have to be open, we have to be accepting, that there can be
changes as we move forward. Yes, we have all kinds of boards and corporate
bodies, financial boards, in our system that administer financial detail and
administration, but that is not what we have here. We have a very particular
corporation here that deals with a very particular subject, which is student
loans, and how they are going to be repaid, collected and so on.
It goes beyond being just a policy decision on, are we going to have student
loans? We are into the back end of it, in a lot of ways here, as to how we are
going to it get back, what our collection procedure is going to be. To take
nothing away from bureaucrats or professional financial account managers who
look after this stuff, there is nobody better to put advice into the system, as
well, than the very people affected by it, and that is the student. That is why
subsection (
d) is being suggested here as an amendment.
We talk about doing what is right for the students; we talk about having the
students' input. We ran into a situation here last week where there was an
amendment proposed that could have affected potentially every student loan in
the Province, and the students did not indeed know about it. They did not know
about it. It was picked up on, and an appropriate change was made to address it.
Now, I am not suggesting that this amendment here is of the same magnitude, but
it is certainly important. How can we have a student corporation, as is being
created here, without letting the people who are most impacted by it - for
example, students - have some say at the board table? This goes beyond having an
advisory group that might tell you something, if and when the government or this
corporation ever goes out and asks them. This is allowing the very people most
impacted to be at the board table when the decisions are made, to have some
input.
We talked in our Throne Speech about education being the fuel of the economy.
Well education, I believe, is also one of the major tenets of democracy, in
addition to freedom and some others. What is wrong with having the very people
who are impacted here siting on this board? We are here as an Opposition, not to
oppose for the sake of opposing but to suggest constructive ideas that might
improve a piece of legislation. I think that is exactly what we are doing here.
The government is not the possessor of all knowledge and wisdom, nor the
people who are going to sit on this board - the three bureaucrats - the Deputy
Minister of Education, the Deputy Minister of Finance, and the Secretary to
Treasury Board. In fact, they were probably all students at one time, whoever
they end up being, but they are probably long out of touch with the needs of
students, vis--vis a student himself or herself. That is why there is nothing
wrong whatsoever with the amendment.
The purpose of subsection (
e) here is, in addition to the students, who again
has most contact with the students other than the principals of the
post-secondary institutions such as CONA and Memorial University? Why should
there not be a representative there? They are the persons who are in day-to-day
contact with the administration. You always heard of looking at things in the
cold day logical light of second thought. Well, there is nothing wrong here with
having a sober second thought sit on the board when these decisions are being
made.
I speak in favour of the motion. I think it is indeed a very good motion and
we cannot - because we in the past have had all kinds of Crown corporations that
might deal with anything from loans to fishermen to insurance to fishermen to
farm loans to whatever, this is a different situation. One of the most
principled, most detailed and important concerns we have is student loans in
this Province, and there is nothing wrong with having the students involved in
its administration.
The only comment I would make off the topic somewhat is, it is my
understanding, and I stand to be corrected here, vis--vis the timing of this
bill again, and I will not belabour the point, is that the past Administration,
back in August, 2003, were advised that CIBC was getting out of the business -
getting out of the business back in August, 2003. The fact is that CIBC told the
former Administration, you have to decide by February when you are taking this
over, because we are definitely out of it - and what your plans are. That was
all that was told by CIBC to the former Administration. Decide by February where
you want to go.
This new Administration decided before February that where we want to go is,
we want to have our own corporation, as outlined in Bill 1 here, and we are
going to do it by March 31. I do not think there is anything that anyone in
government can show us whereby CIBC insisted that this new corporation has to be
incorporated as of and before April 1, 2004. If there is any information to the
contrary, I would certainly appreciate seeing it in that regard. Because that
does not exist, I would submit, that is why some people are dubious about why
the government is adamant that this be done before this fiscal year ends.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment to
Clause 11?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: Against?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
CHAIR: Defeated.
Shall clause 11 carry?
On motion, clause 11 carried.
CHAIR: Clause 16.
The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Clause 16 that we are about to discuss and debate, perhaps to
some extent, is really the essence of the discussion and the debate that was
held during the last parliamentary day. It was an interesting debate and the
Leader of the Opposition participated, as did the Opposition House Leader, as
did the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and as did some members on this side
of the House, on the government side, Mr. Chairman.
What was interesting about the debate is that it gave, I think, all the
people of the Province, Mr. Chairman, the reassurance that any
section or any
amendment that was being put forward was, obviously, ultimately in the interests
of our students. Mr. Chairman, if there was any question or any doubt as to what
was being proposed as being in the students' best interests, obviously it was
necessary. We all agreed, Mr. Chairman, members on both sides of this House,
that if there was any question or doubt or uncertainty as to what ultimately
would be in the best interests of the students of this Province that that was
not good enough. That was essentially the nature of the debate.
I thank members opposite for their participation in that debate, because as a
result of what was discussed Thursday past, Mr. Chairman, it was necessary to
make some changes that reflected the certainty and the reassurance that perhaps
the students of this Province were seeking. As a result of the debate, and this
information has been shared with members opposite, we propose at this time that
Clause 16 of the bill, which is obviously the clause which is now being debated
MR. E. BYRNE: You circulated that to members beforehand, I understand.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: That particular
section has been circulated. I know the
Opposition House Leader and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vide have seen what
is being proposed and, it is my understanding, agree with the spirit and the
wording of the proposed amendment.
For the record Mr. Chairman has asked me to read this in, and I will do this
at this time.
assigned to the corporation on or before April 1, 2004 may, notwithstanding any
term or condition of a student loan agreement applicable to that student loan,
be established or varied in accordance with the regulations to facilitate
administrative integration."
Section 17.1.1(1) "Where the total amount required to be paid under the
borrower's loans administered under the integration agreement has increased as
administrative integration, the corporation shall upon repayment in full of
those loans refund to the borrower the amount of the increase."
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, that reflects, essentially, the concerns that were
raised during the last parliamentary day.
(2) "Notwithstanding subsection 19.1(2), a borrower may take an action
against the corporation to recover a refund under subsection (1)."
Then we have the
Definitions section, Mr. Chairman,
section 17.1.2 "In
sections 17.1 and 17.1.1..." it defines administrative integration to mean
"administrative integration' as defined in the integration
agreement;" and (b) "integration agreement' means the
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Agreement for the Administrative Integration of
the Canada Student Loans Programs and the Newfoundland and Labrador Student
Financial Assistance Program."
(2) "Clause 16 of the Bill is amended by deleting the words to pay'
from the proposed subsection 17.4(1)."
(3) "Clause 16 of the Bill is amended by adding after the proposed
subsection 17.4(3) the following as subsection (4) and by renumbering the
remaining subsections:
(4) Where a student loan is assigned to the corporation
by a lender, the corporation has the right to collect from the borrower of that
student loan the total amount required to be paid by the borrower under the
terms of the student loan agreement, as amended by this Act, notwithstanding a
payment made by the Crown under an agreement with the lender."
(4) "Clause 16 of the Bill is amended by adding immediately after the
word and brackets, (Canada)' in the proposed subsection 17.4(5) the words,
comma and figures or under the Income Tax Act, 2000'."
Mr. Chairman, again the protection that was referred to in the debate of the
previous parliamentary evening, and the security that was referenced and was
being sought, I would propose is found in the rewording of this amendment. As I
have indicated just a few moments ago, this wording has been shared with members
opposite and they, along with us, now agree that the security and the protection
and the lack of doubt is no longer here, and if, in fact, any question were
being raised or any issue being raised that ultimately could negatively impact
upon a student in terms of a change in the provisions or conditions of a loan,
that is rectified by the improved wording of this section.
Mr. Chairman, what we experienced, I would suggest, several days ago, as
referenced in this new wording, deals with that very factor. Again, I suppose,
it is a commentary on what value there is very often when members of this hon.
House, regardless of either side, participate in a debate to improve legislation
to ensure that the interests for whom the statute is designed, the beneficiaries
of the statute, to ensure that those particular interests are protected and
preserved.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The Chairperson rules that the amendment to clause 16, as put
forward by the Minister of Education, is in order.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to speak to the amendment and, in particular, to the changes
that have been brought in to recognize that any changes that might result from
having to align these two agreements, the matter that was raised on Thursday by
the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, and spoken to by me, was a very important
point that has been resolved favourably in that the minister's amendment meets
that concern.
We were very concerned, Mr. Chairman. I understand the wording sounds a
little stilted but, in fact, if they are stuck with amending an agreement that
might work out to the disadvantage of individuals, you may not know that for
some time, but the obvious result of the amendment is that if the effect of a
change is that students end up paying more, that would be rectified. I am
pleased that the minister has listened to the debate and the comments and worked
with this side of the House in achieving an amendment that meets the concerns
that were raised. That is a good example, as has been said, of how Parliaments
should work and how the House of Assembly should work on questions such as this.
I just want to add those comments to the debate with respect to the amendment
proposed by the Minister of Education to the legislation before us. I think we
are not doing all amendments on clause 16 first, are we? We can deal with this
one first?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: All right, I will deal with my amendment a little later,
which will come up.
This is very important, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Member for Burgeo
& LaPoile for identifying this as an issue last week, and for raising it. As
he said, and as we said on Thursday, although the student leadership - we are
certainly supportive of the move to join the two systems so that we can have one
administration, the student leadership was certainly not aware of the potential
caused by leaving it open for any changes to, in fact, result in increased costs
to students. Happily, that has been changed.
We still do have the concern, Mr. Chairman - and I hope it will be raised,
spoken to, or addressed by the minister in the debate - that when you put these
two systems together and you put these loans together and you put these two
operations together, we will have one system and it will be streamlined.
My question remains: Will it be rigid, because we must comply with the
federal student loan plan? Will there remain flexibility for this government to
approach student loans and student aid in this Province in a manner that may be
different from what the federal government would have in other provinces, in
other places where they may not share the same concerns that we have about how
student loans ought to be managed, what policies ought to be addressed, what
kind of remission programs there ought to be, how they ought to be administered
and those kinds of things? I hope that if we are going down this road, Mr.
Chairman, we will not find out in a year's time that the kind of changes that
might be promoted by students, for example, and even be accepted by government
as being necessary, that we might find out: oh, no, we can't do that. We
that does not allow us to do that.
I have not seen this agreement, Mr. Chairman. The agreement has not been
tabled here in the House. We know it is going to go into effect on the first of
April, but we do not know whether the hands of this government and future
to have a single administration. So, I would like to have that question
addressed. I think it is a very important question. We do not have it before us
so I am not going to try and poke holes in something that we have not seen, but
when this party was on this side of the House there was a concern about seeing
the documents. Remember that, Mr. Chairman? We want to see the documents. We
wanted to see what was in the agreements about Voisey's Bay before we could
take a position on it.
Mr. Chairman, I am not asking that we hold up this debate until we have that
agreement analyzed but I would like the minister to comment on that point. Are
the Canada Student Loan - the joint administration of the Canada Student Loan
Program and the Newfoundland and Labrador Student Loan Program, are we going
into a situation where our own flexibility is going to be curtailed and where
to accede to the kind of changes that our students might want and need, and even
members of this government might want to accede to? Can we address that?
I certainly support the amendment, and as I said, I repeat my thanks to the
minister and members opposite for being cooperative in refashioning the
amendment so that in fact it does not cause increased costs to students while at
the same time accomplishing the objective of having a joint system.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment as put
forward by the Minister of Education to clause 16, Bill 1?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: Those against?
Carried.
Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt clause 16, as amended?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, there is another amendment to (inaudible).
CHAIR: I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, we are going to
deal with the amendment as put forward by the Minister of Education. We will not
be passing the bill. We will be passing the amendment. We will be dealing with
your amendment next and then we will vote on that separately.
MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman (inaudible) pass the amendment
and then, I believe, I heard Your Honour say: Is clause 16, as amended, passed?
In fact, there is another amendment to clause 16. As I understood, we were just
voting on whether or not clause 16, as amended, will pass. I do not know if that
vote was completed. If it has been, perhaps we should revert to clause 16 so
that my amendment can, in fact, be put.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member has an amendment. It
is clause 16 subclause 17.7(3), I believe it is. So if we can move to that, Mr.
Chairman, then we can pass clause 16 in its entirety.
CHAIR: The Chair has had a chance to look at the amendment as put forward
by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and it is certainly in order.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I may just read the amendment into the record. I am moving that clause 16
be amended by adding to the end of proposed subclause 17.7(3) the words,
"unless the corporation so directs."
That has the effect, Mr. Chairman, of allowing for student loans - it has no
reasonable prospect of collecting those loans. Loans that have, in fact, been
written off by Treasury Board because they are not collectible, to actually be
wiped out. It is a fine distinction, Mr. Chairman, but I think it is an
important one that has to be made.
In debate on this legislation we talked about the effect of students loans on
students who - as a result of having this student loan debt - become virtually
unemployable. We have seen examples of that. In fact, it was brought to my
attention, and the Member for St. John's Centre's attention most recently by
officials of the Department of Human Resources and Employment where student loan
debt was recognized as a significant barrier to employment for young people who
are in receipt of social assistance and who are trying to get jobs. In fact, it
was identified as student loan debt from the private colleges which only support
my concern that one of the things we are doing wrong in our student loan program
and our education policy is failing to adequately support the College of the
North Atlantic and the university - but primarily, on this issue, the College of
the North Atlantic - by decreasing budgets by $25 million over the last ten
years down from $87 million to $62 million per year so that programs can be
provided to students who need them; good quality programs at a reasonable cost;
in fact the tuition costs being, in many case, one-half, one-third or
one-quarter of what the private institutions are charging.
One of the consequences is that we have student loan debts on students who do
not have jobs, who are unable to pay it, and there has to be some mechanism, Mr.
Chair. We do know that, in the last seven or eight years, the Government of
Canada changed the Bankruptcy Act. They changed the Bankruptcy Act so that if
somebody is in that dire circumstance where they cannot pay any of their bills,
let alone their student loan debt, they can have all their debts wiped out. All
their debts can be wiped out under bankruptcy legislation, except for their
me. I imagine there may have been a few bad examples of somebody going to
medical school or something and racking up $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000 or
$80,000 debt trying to declare bankruptcy and go and get a $100,000 a year job
the next year. A few bad examples that may have been bandied about long enough
to change the bankruptcy legislation so that student loan debt cannot be wiped,
but that is a circumstance that we have right now. We do not have to like it,
but at the moment that is the law of Canada. So we have to do something, if we
can, to relieve students of this obligation where there is no reasonable
prospect of payment. Unless the power is there, no matter what the Minister of
Education wants to do, no matter what the Government House Leader wants to do,
no matter what even the Minister of Finance wants to do, the debt cannot be
relieved.
I have had examples, Mr. Chair, and I remember talking to previous ministers,
for example, in charge of the Department of Human Resources or social
assistance, whatever it was called in those days, when somebody had an
overpayment, even going back fifteen or twenty years, from social assistance,
and somebody comes back on the system and they find out that there is an
overpayment that is fifteen or eighteen years old, the minister could not waive
the obligation. The minister could not waive the obligation and they had to take
it out of the social assistance the person was receiving today, because of some
overpayment that was generated, perhaps even by mistake, many years ago. Without
the power to actually write off the debt, the minister was told: Minister, you
do not have the authority to do that. You cannot do it.
So, we have to provide for an opportunity, at least, for debts to be written
off. Now, it says the corporation so directs. I hope the minister will be in a
position to influence the corporation. We could have said, I suppose, the
minister so directs - it might have been easier - but at least the power is
there and I am sure the minister, being the minister responsible for the
corporation, would certainly be in a position to do that.
I would want, Mr. Chair, having raised this point today and gone to the
extent of having an amendment to provide this power there, to hear that this
government takes seriously the notion that there are many students out there
whose debts, although obviously student loan debts are an obligation and a
burden to anybody who has them, I would encourage the government to look into
its programs. The Minister of Human Resources and Employment, her department may
be able to identify people who are in such dire circumstances that their student
loan obligation is there preventing them from getting into the workforce,
preventing them from moving on in life, and that some mechanism may be able to
be brought forward to at least allow them to be in a situation where they can,
somehow or other, see their way, see some light at the end of the tunnel, and
perhaps be able to get on with their life, get a job, take advantage of a
program that might be offered by government, and get into the workforce.
I think it is an important amendment. It is an empowering amendment, but it
is going to require some action on the part of government to ensure that this
kind of amendment can actually work for people.
Having said that, I believe there is going to be support from the other side
for that amendment and I hope the minister will speak to it and acknowledge that
support. Hopefully, we will pass that amendment this afternoon.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I find myself, Mr. Chairman, in the unusual position of not necessarily
agreeing with everything that my friend opposite has said, but in fact I do
agree with his amendment that he has put forward.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that some of the proposed amendment as just
discussed was as a result of some discussion that he had with the Opposition
House Leader as well. Nevertheless, we have had an opportunity to assess the
implications of the amendment as put forward by the Member for Signal Hill-Quid
Vidi and, as indicated, and in response to his last point, we on the government
side of the House will accept the amendment as presented and we would now ask
that we move forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the said amendment,
as put forward by the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to clause 16?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: Against?
On motion, amendment carried.
On motion, clause 16, as amended, carried.
CHAIR: Shall clause 19 carry?
The hon. the Minister for Education.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This clause 19 will, in fact, bring a close, presumably, to the amending
sections of Bill 1. This has already been discussed at some length by members on
both sides of the Chamber. Essentially what it does, it changes the date from
the thirtieth to the twenty-ninth.
There is one point that I would like to make on this, because really it has
not been made and I think it is worthy of some note. Yes, it is true that the
CIBC put this Province on notice that it was no longer in the student loan
business. Obviously, the Province then took steps to seek alternative ways to
ensure that there was student loan business being carried out on behalf of the
students of this Province; but, Mr. Chairman, the reason why - and I do not know
if it has really been fully disclosed at this point - the end of March was a
critical date, was that approximately eight months ago, Mr. Chairman, it was
necessary for both parties to this arrangement, namely the CIBC and the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to extend -
MR. E. BYRNE: Eight months ago?
MR. OTTENHEIMER: - approximately eight months ago, to extend the
agreement. There was an extension agreement signed approximately eight months
ago, that expired on 31 March 2004. Since that time there was no effort by
either party, whether it were CIBC or the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador, to extend that agreement. It was not extended in January, it was not
extended in November past, it was not extended in February. So, in the absence
of an amendment, in the absence of an amendment to the extension agreement, the
legal obligation was such, Mr. Chairman, that all parties had to abide by the
newly arrived at extension date of March 31, 2004. Mr. Chairman, it is as simple
as that.
Hear we are today, Mr. Chairman, on March 29. Obviously the parties need time
to do the bookkeeping, to do the accounting, to do the necessary work, to ensure
that when students come knocking on April 1, to have work effected with respect
to their student loan, that there was a legal entity in place. We were advised
in the Department of Education that time was required, and that is simply the
reason why this lonely amendment is there, Mr. Chairman, that changes the
effective date from 30 March to 29 March, no more and no less.
Mr. Chairman, that is the last amendment that is being proposed, I believe,
by either side. What it simply does, as is indicated, it changes the date from
30 March to 29 March, which, in fact, of course, is today's date. Essentially,
as a result of our deliberations and our debate, Mr. Chairman, we will now have
- assuming that we will have conclusion of this particular debate and that we
will have passage of this bill - we will, as a result of this legislation, have
once and for all created and established a legal authority that provides a
funding arrangement for students, so that their student loan regime can continue
without interruption once an application and once a request on behalf of any
student is made.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The Chair has had a chance to review the amendment to Clause 19 as
put forward by the Minister of Education, and certainly rules that it is in
order.
The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to respond to the Minister of Education who spoke about Clause
19 which is changing the date from the 30 th to the 29 th .
I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that what the Minister of Education neglected to
say was that government did not exercise their option in this matter. They had
an option. As the minister described, the Bank of Commerce got out of the
student loan business, but through correspondence we had to and from the Bank of
Commerce a decision was arrived at August, 2003, that they would extend their
loan portfolio until March 31. If government wanted to exercise their option to
go beyond that point all they had to do was let CIBC know by February 1, 2004.
So, it is clear that there were choices in this matter and it was not as cut and
dried as the Minister of Education mentioned when he rose to his feet a few
moments ago. There were options on this portfolio, and CIBC had no problem with
extending it beyond March 31, April 30 or June 30, if the government of the day
wanted to do that. It is clear that the government did not want to exercise
their option.
I will say for the record, that I tried to get this information from the
minister - well, I guess it is the Minister of Education now - concerning that
arrangement and, of course, I was denied that information. I tried last week to
get my Cabinet Paper in connection with that very decision that was made in
Cabinet and, of course, I was denied my Cabinet Paper.
I don't know why this new government is saying that they are open and
accountable when, in fact, the very information necessary to carry on an
informed debate in this House was denied to myself as a member. Mr. Chairman,
the artificial date of March 31 is insignificant, it has no truth to the matter.
Government had the option, they could have exercised their option and extended
the student loan portfolio beyond March 31. So there is no urgency in bringing
this matter to the House and Clause 19 doesn't have any relevance to this
whole bill that it needs to be passed by today, March 29.
The only reason why it was changed from March 31 to March 29 was because last
week the government of the day decided they would bring in a Budget tomorrow and
so, naturally, in order to have their figures match their Budget, which was
printed - there Budget was printed several days ago - they would have to have
this inflationary deficit to match the phony report done by Michael Gourley. So
there is no relevance to clause 19 making it March 29, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment as put
forward by the Minister of Education to clause 19?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: Against?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
CHAIR: Motion carried.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt clause 19, as amended?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: Against?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
CHAIR: Carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in
Legislative Session convened as follows.
CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?
MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a point of
order.
MR. HARRIS: On a point of order. I believe the other day we did not in
fact pass the title, and it was for a reason that we did not pass it. Are you
passing the enactment before you pass the title? So we will pass the enactment
and then we will discuss the title, at some length?
AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.
MR. HARRIS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: Against?
Carried.
CLERK: A bill, "An Act to Amend The Student Financial Assistance
Act."
CHAIR: Shall the title carry?
All those in favour?
The hon. the Member for Si