Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 17 December 2002 (44th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 47)
2002-12-17
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 17, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 47
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in this hon. House to pay tribute to a native of Bay Roberts
whose business legacy will not soon be forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chester Dawe, the founder of one of Atlantic Canada's
biggest building supply store chains, passed away yesterday at the age of
ninety-eight.
Mr. Dawe was born and educated in Bay Roberts, the youngest son of Captain
William and Eliza Dawe, and later attended Bishop Field College and Butler's
Business School before joining the family firm, William Dawe and Sons Limited.
In 1945, he established Chester Dawe Limited, which grew from an office on
Topsail Road to locations in St. John's, Gander, Fortune and Clarke's Beach.
The company has played a major role in housing development and construction of
commercial and institutional buildings around this Province.
One of the oldest members of the Church Lads Brigade and a member of the
Province's business Hall of Fame, Mr. Dawe was also known as a champion of
low-cost housing and long-term financing to rural Newfoundland, convincing the
provincial government of the day to allow CHMC to introduce such an initiative.
Mr. Dawe is now resting at Carnell's Funeral Home. He was predeceased by
his wife of sixty-nine years, Phyllis Carson, in 1999.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of this House, I send my sincere
condolences to his daughters, Janet Gardiner, Sonia Dawe Ryan, and his family
and friends on the death of one of the Province's most outstanding
entrepreneurs. He will be surely missed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my pleasure to stand today to pay tribute to the RNC officers' band,
Siochana, who will be presented with an award of excellence by the RNC
Association on December 21. This award is presented to an individual or group
when nominated by their peers for outstanding work in the community.
Siochana, a Gaelic name meaning peace, was taken from the name of the police
force in Ireland, Garda Siochana.
Shortly after the band, Siochana, was formed in 1999, they released a
compilation CD which had various groups from across the Province. This CD, done
strictly on a voluntary basis, raised approximately $12,000 for the Canadian
Cancer Society.
In October of this year, there was a second CD, Cops for Kids. All the money
raised will go to four charities involving children, namely: Sunshine Dreams for
Kids, Walk for Dreams, Candlelighters, Camp Delight, and Big Brothers/Big
Sisters.
As an aside, not related to the band or the officers, Dave Hoddinott, a local
artist, donated his time and effort to paint the CD cover, Good Puppy, and
proceeds from that print will also go to charities.
As well as the CD, from which the entire proceeds go the Cops for Kids
charities, the band is constantly on the move playing at the various seniors'
homes and at the Janeway as well as for charity fundraisers. Once again, all on
a volunteer basis.
I ask the Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating
the members of Siochana, RNC officers Charlie Shallow, Bruce Mesh, Wayne James,
Steve Knight, Jim Carroll and Darrin Feehan, on receiving this award for their
service to the community.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
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, today I would like to bring to the attention of all members the
work being done by the Battle Harbour Literacy Council in promoting literacy
activities in the communities of Lodge Bay, St. Lewis and Mary's Harbour.
Recently, two very successful events were held on the South Coast of
Labrador. There was Walk and Stroll for Literacy event which raised more than
$1,500 to support reading circles in the three communities. Also, the council,
in conjunction with the Circle of Friends Family Resource Centre, held a Reading
Tent during the Joining the Generations celebrations at Lodge Bay. Parents,
children and grandparents took part to promote literacy and reading activities.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to join me as I
congratulate the members of this literacy council, and commend them on their
efforts to promote literacy in our Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure today to rise in this House and congratulate
Haylie Vokey on winning a local competition in the Lions International Peace
Poster Contest.
Haylie is a Grade 7 student at Bishop White All-Grade School in Port Rexton.
Haylie is a very motivated student, maintaining a high academic grade average as
well as being very well known among her peers as well as her teachers for her
artistic abilities. Her win was followed just this past weekend, Mr. Speaker,
with another win of first place for the best decorated car in the local Santa
Claus parade.
The area Lions Clubs, both Fort Point and Robin Hood, sponsored the
international competition which was open to all students between eleven and
thirteen years of age. The theme of the competition was, Dream of Peace. Haylie's
peace and harmony. Her poster is now entered into the next level of competition,
the district level. There are three more levels after that, culminating in one
overall international winner.
I would ask all hon. members of this House to join with me today in
congratulating Haylie on her win, and in wishing her well in the next level of
competition.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell
Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Ted Russell, also known as Uncle Mose, wrote and told the story
on The Chronicles of Uncle Mose, a series which began as a regular feature of
CBC Radio in late 1953 and, in particular, as part of The Fisherman's
Broadcast .
Ted Russell was born in Coley's Point in 1904 and began teaching at the age
of sixteen. His first teaching assignment was a one-room, all-grade school at
Pass Island in Fortune Bay, followed by years in Harbour Breton, Millertown,
Channel, Fogo, and St. John's. In 1935, he was appointed magistrate under the
Commission of Government and served in Springdale, Harbour Breton and Woody
Point. In 1943, his family moved to St. John's where Russell had accepted the
position of director of co-operatives, a post which he held until 1949 when he
was invited to run for the Liberals in Bonavista South, an election which he
won, and served in the first provincial Cabinet as Minister of Natural
Resources.
Mr. Speaker, recently a new CD has been released, called, Tales from Pigeon
Inlet, containing classic stories from the original radio broadcasts. It also
includes a sixteen-page booklet with photos, biography and liner notes.
Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. members of this House to join with me as I
give recognition to the writer of these classic stories that have become part of
our heritage, and also to commend the people who are working to preserve these
original broadcasts and bring these new CDs forward, especially at this time of
the year.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform hon. members of changes to the
Multi-Materials Stewardship Board. The MMSB was formed in 1996 to manage various
waste management programs on behalf of government. Currently, they are managing
the following waste management programs:
Beverage Container Program; Used Tire Program; Household Hazardous Waste
Program; Waste Management Trust Fund; education and support for the recently
announced Used Oil Recycling Program.
The MMSB will also call for an Expression of Interest, in the next week or
so, for paper and cardboard recycling in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, in April of 2002, government announced a
Provincial Waste Management Strategy. We are currently reviewing what enhanced
role the Stewardship Board can play in its implementation. The strategy will
require the co-operation of many agencies, one of the key ones being the
Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities. In recognition of this
key role, provisions have been made to have the president of the NLFM sit on the
Board of Directors of the Stewardship Board. This will be very important as
further waste management initiatives are developed.
In addition, we are reducing the number of government representatives on the
Stewardship Board from three to one. Mr. Speaker, I am also announcing the
appointment of Ms Leslie Grattan as Chief Operating Officer of the Stewardship
Board. Ms Grattan will work with the Board of Directors to review and assess the
board's future mandate and role as government implements its provincial waster
management strategy.
I am confident that with Ms Grattan's recent experience developing the
Provincial Waste Management Strategy and assisting with the Avalon Waste
Management Plan, that she has the necessary expertise to complete this important
assignment.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the Stewardship Board as we enter
into a new era of waste management in this Province.
I also wish to table the Annual Report of the Multi-Materials Stewardship
Board for the period ending March 31, 2002.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we look forward on this side to the Annual
Report of the MMSB. I am sure there will be lots of questions on that again this
year.
On the appointments, I would like to congratulate the two individuals who are
appointed, Leslie Grattan as Chief Operating Officer of the MMSB, and Dave
Denine, who I might add is an excellent choice to play a role as well.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The statement of the minister is a very positive step forward for the
Multi-Materials Stewardship Board, and the presence of the president of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, Mr. Randy Simms, will be
an important addition to the board. I hope that they will be working hard to
bring us up to speed in terms of recycling throughout this Province as we have
seen in other Provinces.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you. Any help is always appreciated, especially when
you are on television, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. Is there anything
else I need to adjust?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to update hon. members on the results
of this year's Onshore Request for Bids for the issuance of petroleum
exploration permits in the onshore area of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Department of Mines and Energy announced this Request for Bids for
thirteen parcels of land on September 27, with the closing date set for December
13. All bids were to be submitted in the form of work commitments and expressed
in terms of the total dollar amount to be expended on a parcel of land for the
five year primary term of the exploration permit.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that this year's Request for
Bids has been successful. Eight parcels of land covering an area in excess of
202,000 hectares were conditionally selected. These bids amount to just over
$3.3 million in work commitments over the next five years. Successful bidders
are now required to submit a security deposit for 20 per cent of their work
commitment within twenty-one days. Upon receipt of the security deposit,
exploration permits will be issued.
Mr. Speaker, after reviewing the successful bidders, it is very encouraging
to see some familiar names and some new participants. It is a healthy mix of
established players in our onshore industry and relative newcomers who have an
obvious interest in our onshore petroleum sector.
Mr. Speaker, I would like now to congratulate each of the successful bidders.
Parcels #3, 5 and 13 were awarded to Contact Exploration Incorporated. Parcel #4
was awarded to the joint venture involving Deer Lake Oil and Gas Incorporated,
East Resources Incorporated, Ammonite Corporation, and 554568 Alberta Limited.
Parcels #7 and 9 were awarded to Deer Lake Oil and Gas Incorporated. Parcels #11
and 12 were awarded to Vulcan Minerals Incorporated. I wish to thank all parties
for their interest and efforts during this process.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first Onshore Request for Bids since 1996. I am very
pleased to see continued growth in this industry, and I look forward to issuing
exploration permits in the New Year.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we certainly welcome the news as just
read by the Minister of Mines and Energy. This is, I think, important news. When
we look, Mr. Speaker, at the map that was attached to this particular
Ministerial Statement, we can see clearly the regions of the Province that,
hopefully, will benefit from onshore activity. They are, indeed, parts of the
Northern Peninsula, in particularly the St. Barbe District, the Port au Port
Peninsula and other parts of the West Coast. Of course, these are areas of the
Province, in particular, that have suffered from relatively significant
out-migration and unemployment.
On this side of the House, Mr. Minister, we are certainly encouraged by this
news, we certainly wish all the participants well, and we certainly look forward
to the continuing support by this government in this ongoing onshore activity.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: Thank you.
The minister's statement is certainly welcome news, in that we are seeing
the gradual maturing of our onshore exploration industry. We hope that these
individuals and companies, who are interested in investing in this type of
exploration, will have success, Mr. Speaker, and encourage others to continue to
explore. It takes an awful lot of exploration to find oil and wells and we look
forward to these people having success with their exploration.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my questions this afternoon are for the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of this government's blatant mismanagement of our
fiscal resources, a lot of services -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. WILLIAMS: Hon. members opposite may laugh but this is a very serious
matter.
- a lot of services in this Province have been scaled back. The union that
represents the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary says the force is understaffed
and overworked, and is, in fact, in a crisis situation. Mr. Speaker, inadequate
staffing levels are a major concern for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
In Corner Brook, which comprises my District of Humber West, the police force
has decreased by 20 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please explain how he expects the Royal
Newfoundland Constabulary to maintain a stable level of police coverage and
ensure public safety and security, when according to the RNCA the force has
seventy-seven fewer police officers today than they did in 1986?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In response to the question: I have, as Minister of Justice, and being
responsible for the RNCA, had discussions with the RNCA on several occasions,
not only recently, but over the past three years. Resourcing is, indeed, an
issue and having more resources, not only for additional police officers but
also for additional equipment, is, we feel in the Department of Justice, a
priority. I have discussed it with President Boland, who is the new President of
the RNCA. In fact, he advised me that he would be doing a public consultation
process which they are in the course of doing now, just recently having met in
Lab West and in Corner Brook, and I understand they are holding meetings in St.
John's.
As I indicated to the media, as well as to Constable Boland, it is a priority
of this department to, hopefully, secure more funding. Of course, policing
resources and what we have available to give to the RNC falls into the range of
government priorities. What are the other priorities? There are only so many
resources to go around and we have to decide where we can best use the resources
that we have, whether it be health care, education or police resourcing. Their
concerns have not fallen on deaf ears. They have an audience as required. They
know exactly where we stand and the RNC knows that this Administration has gone
to bat for them more than once, and we are still in their corner and, hopefully,
we can secure the necessary resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not know how big a priority it is for the minister. He has been
discussing this matter with the police for the last three years and the RNC's
budget has shrunk by over 10 per cent in the last ten years. It appears that
their priorities are not health care and education, but ad campaigns seem to be
a big priority for the government.
Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please explain how the force is supposed to hire
new constables and maintain policing levels with an ever expanding caseload,
when their budgets have been reduced by 10 per cent over the last ten years, and
while the number of calls that they receive is increasing by 10 per cent
annually?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, just for clarification: The only discussions
between this minister and the RNCA in the last three years have not only and
exclusively concerned the issue of resourcing. I would like that to be quite
clear. In fact, the number one issue put to this minister three years ago by the
RNCA was not the resourcing issue but the issue of binding arbitration which
this administration, I am pleased to say, did -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: - indeed achieve last year, in 2001, and the process was
used for the first time and concluded this past June and July.
The second issue on the RNCA agenda was the issue of a workers'
compensation concern they had. That one is still being worked on. The third
issue of priority was their resourcing issue. We addressed it partially last
budget, when we provided $600,000 for further equipment, because the vehicles
were in a serious state of disrepair, and the issue of manpower is now coming to
the forefront as their new need and their highest priority.
There is a balance here. You can only have the resources to put into policing
or anything else in this Province if you have the resources.
MR. J. BYRNE: If you weren't wasting it on ad campaigns, you would have
it.
MR. PARSONS: If the Member for Cape St. Francis wants to shout across the
House and disrupt me, that is fine, but he ought to have the courtesy to listen,
instead of being disruptive.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. PARSONS: It was a very good question and, hopefully, I will provide
the information required.
Unlike the members opposite we do not want to have developments-
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. PARSONS: - so we can get resources. We have to try to make use of
what we have but at the same time pursue developments so we can get more
resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there are many, many issues for the police. We
do have a force that is in crisis and we have a force whose morale is at an all
time low. Most police officers are expected to work an inordinate amount of
overtime in order to address a chronic shortage of constables. Sick time has
increased significantly as a result of on the job stress. What is more, in order
to spend time with their families some officers are actually forced to call in
sick to get some time home.
Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please explain why government has not reacted to
this policing crisis? When can we expect to see an increase in RNC staffing
levels?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, let no one in this Province, and certainly the
Leader of the Opposition, think for a moment that the safety of our citizens is
not foremost in everybody's minds, because it is. There is also a factor here
- you talk about the additional calls that have come to the RNCA for their
services over the past number of years. There are other matters that the public
might not be aware of that have lead to increased use of officer time that we
did not have in the past. For example, criminal trials have become much more
complex, which require much more time with these officers being tied up on court
time. It is not simply a case of not having enough bodies. It is: How do you
handle these complexities with the manpower that you do have?
We also had issues with overtime and sick time usage and whether it was being
properly utilized. That is a matter that Chief Deering has been working on for
the past twelve months intently with the RNCA. Hopefully, we are going to see
some easing of pressures in that regard, so that we do not see any misuse in any
regard by overtime and sick leave. They allege and suggest - and we are not
contesting it - that the reason they use sick time is because they have a
shortage of manpower. Obviously, there are very legitimate explanations on their
side as well. We are trying to work our way through that.
The bottom line is: We have met with everybody in this Province who has a
concern with policing, whether it be RNCA users or RCMP users. We will do our
utmost -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. PARSONS: - to see that the resources are available to provide the
manpower and equipment that is needed to give the people of this Province the
safety and security that they need.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for having just acknowledged that the
workload and the caseload is, in fact, increasing, and they are, in fact,
spending more time in court, in that this government, this minister and this
Premier expects them to do more work with less money because they, in fact,
reduced that budget by 10 per cent over the last ten years.
The question of safety for the public is paramount. Safety of the officers is
also important. Police officers tell me, Mr. Speaker, that there are some
vehicles that have racked up more than 250,000 kilometers in the line of duty,
and that it is their opinion that these vehicles are no longer safe to drive on
our highways.
Mr. Speaker, will the Premier confirm, or agree, that safe vehicles are
paramount to a police officer's ability to perform his or her duties and that
some of these vehicles should not even be on our highways in Newfoundland and
Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, let me say, first of all, that in terms of
dealing with the RNCA or any collective bargaining group in this Province, this
administration has shown itself to be more than fair, more than accessible to
anybody.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Whether it be teachers, doctors, you name it, in this
Province, this administration has dealt with them fairly and we intend to and
will do the same thing with the RNCA.
Regarding the equipment, as I alluded to earlier in my answer, $600,000 was
given by this administration to the RNCA, specifically, in the Budget of
2001-2002 for the purchase of new vehicles, and it was used for that purpose.
The fact that a vehicle may have 200,000 or 250,000 kilometres does not mean it
is not safe to be on the highway. We prefer to have brand new vehicles all the
time, if you could afford that, but there is no vehicle used by the RNCA in the
performance of their duties that has not been certified for proper use by the
mechanics of Works, Services and Transportation.
So, to suggest that they are in vehicles that are unsafe on the highways or
operating contrary to law is just absolutely incorrect. They may have older
vehicles that have mileage that we would prefer was less, but they are certainly
not using illegal vehicles.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister to check with the police officers. That is where that
information is coming from. They feel they are in unsafe vehicles, Minister.
Mr. Speaker, last week the Northeast Avalon only had four cruisers on the
road because the force couldn't afford to buy new snow tires for their other
vehicles. In fact, our police force's new prisoner transportation vehicle was
also taken off the road for a period of three weeks because it didn't have
snow tires.
Mr. Speaker, does the Premier feel it is acceptable to jeopardize public
safety and security because it only has snow tires for four vehicles in the
Province's most heavily populated area?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, again the vehicles are provided via the Department of Justice
budget, but the Works Services Department of government maintains these
vehicles. Now, there are more than just RNC vehicles that are repaired. They go
in and, again, what the workload is in the Works Services and Transportation
depots, as far as repairs to these vehicles, I would assume that the RNCA - it
is my understanding police vehicles are done on a priority basis, along with
snow removal equipment, because that is where the urgent needs are, particularly
this time of year.
I would like to say one thing, as well: The Leader of the Opposition referred
to, in the most populated area in the Province. Mr. Speaker, we do not
differentiate in Justice. We do not care if you live in Burnt Islands,
Newfoundland, or if you live in St. John's; you are all entitled to a level of
security and safety by the police forces of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon, the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a very straightforward question for the
minister: Would the minister confirm that at times there are eighteen to twenty
police officers in headquarters because there are no cars available for them to
go out in?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of one incident where certain
vehicles utilized by the RNCA did not get repaired in a timely fashion due to
the backlog at Works, Services and Transportation, and that a few officers had
to do other duties on that particular occasion, but that was brought to
attention by the Department of Justice staff, with the Minister of Works,
Services and Transportation, and we stressed to him, on behalf of the RNCA, our
need and our desire to have the vehicles ready for use by those officers.
Again, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation makes the
definitive decision as to what vehicles get repaired, when, but we have
certainly made our concerns known that there should not be any delay between
officers not being able to perform their duties because vehicles are being
repaired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier confirm that, just this month, a woman had
locked herself in her bathroom to try and prevent a violent domestic attack and
the only police vehicle available to respond to her plea for help had to drive
from Mount Pearl to Outer Cove? Would you not agree that this seriously
jeopardizes public safety?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, that particular incident referred to by the
Leader of the Opposition certainly has not been brought to my attention by
anyone in my department. If the Leader of the Opposition has a particular
circumstance at any time where he feels there has been some letdown in what the
appropriate level of service is, he or anyone else in the Province, in fact, are
invited to bring that to our attention, if they feel something improper was
done.
I would like to say here as well, albeit the Leader of the Opposition today
is no doubt a spokesperson for the RNCA, let there be no mistake about where
this Administration stands. We are not an RNC management support only. We give
our wholehearted support to the efforts of the RNCA and every member of that
association. They do the best they can do in the circumstance they have, with
the resources they have, and I commend them for the admirable job that they do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
In view of the inadequate consideration for privacy and confidentiality of
health information, will the minister now do the right thing and withdraw Bill
24 until an appropriate legislative framework is ready for this House to
consider as it relates to the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health
Information?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. member for his question. I had arranged, in response to
discussion in the House the other day in terms of the bill that is before the
House, a bill that was being brought forward at the request of the Newfoundland
and Labrador Centre for Health Information - a body that which we set up some
years ago to deal with the collection and dissemination of information related
to health in this Province. In terms of the legislation that is before the
House, I am disappointed to hear that the discussions today did not arrive at a
resolution, because my understanding is that there were representatives there
from the department and from the centre itself. The information that I have been
provided, and again since the matter was raised before the House, is that quite
frankly the issues that have been raised are unfounded in terms of the controls
that are there, the assurances with regard to the proper protocols and the
proper security with regard to any information that would be collective and
disseminated. Certainly my preference would be, because the legislation that is
before the House -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. SMITH: - as the hon. member would have been advised, I am sure, in
the briefing today, would have been in advance of another piece which we are
hoping to do it the future, and that is to provide for incorporation of the
group, which will position them to be able to take advantage of monies that are
out there right now that they are not able to access because of the nature of
the fact that they do not operate on a stand-alone basis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to take his seat.
The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I take it from the minister's non-answer that
he is going to proceed with the bill. Let me ask the minister this: If NLCHI,
the Centre for Health Information, operated as an arm of the St. John's Health
Care Corporation for the past several years, as it has, why is it necessary to
pass Bill 24 now without first passing a legislative framework for NLCHI?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The only thing I can say in response to that is, the advice that has been
given to this minister, again, and it is legal advice that has been provided to
me, is that this is the appropriate way to proceed, that quite frankly the
preference would be that what we are doing here would be in fact enshrined in
legislation. So it is on the basis of legal advice that has been provided to the
department and to the minister that we are proceeding as we are, but obviously
the hon. member has a difference of opinion and I respect that. Again, I say to
him that in fact this is the legal advice that has been provided to the
department.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that his department is actually
planning to incorporate NLCHI under the companies act and does not have any plan
to bring a legislative framework before this Legislature?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, yes, I will confirm to this point in time that
has been the plan of the department, and there is nothing coercive about that.
Quite frankly, my understanding from the discussions today is that there was
some consideration and some debate given that maybe a preference would be to go
a different route. The minister and the department is certainly open to that in
terms of - I understand the concerns that were put forward.
I do have to say to the hon. member, unfortunately, that I did not get an
opportunity to get debriefed in detail on the meetings. My prior commitments
kept me from spending any amount of time with the officials, but I do understand
that there was some concern that maybe there is a preference in terms of the
route that we proceed. I am certainly open to that. Again, the direction that I
have been given and the advice that I have been given is that, in terms of what
we have before us right now, there is really no reason for that not to proceed
and we can have the discussion - certainly we can do that today -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. SMITH: - in terms of dealing with that matter before the House today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, according to the Avalon Waste Management Action Plan, "The
Committee cannot usefully suggest a detailed phase-out plan for the 43 existing
disposal sites in the area until the Province has determined the standards and
process for site close-out and remediation."
I ask the minister: When will these standards and the process for site
close-out and remediation be put in place?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.
The waste management program that we have put in place, as a government, and
the policy is really the most significant environmental policy since
Confederation, but we are going to be cleaning up the waste disposal sites in
the Province. On the Avalon, the regulations and the criteria will be finalized,
hopefully, before Christmas; if not, very early in the new year. Our Avalon
Waste Management Committee has been appointed. I think the interim committee is
now appointed by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and we are
looking forward to getting on with the job in the new year, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, according to recommendation 48 on page 42 of the action plan,
"With respect to the Cuslett and New Harbour Barrens waste disposal sites,
because of significant environmental concerns..., Government immediately close
out these sites and designate alternate arrangements for the communities using
these sites." The recommendation called for the immediate close-out of the
sites, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister: When will government comply with this
recommendation?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the members of the
Avalon Waste Management Committee. They did a tremendous job on this report and
we very much appreciate the effort they have made. On both those issues, we are
working now and we have been working for the last few weeks to identify
alternative sites. As a matter of fact, the New Harbour site has been evaluated.
We have funded the evaluation as to any environmental impact. We are looking for
alternative sites at this point, and very shortly we are hoping to have a
solution to that problem. We are also hoping to have a longer-term solution, and
that is the plan for the Avalon Waste Management in this region. That plan has
been announced and we are working diligently on a solution to our environmental
waste management situation on the Avalon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's
South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, 30 per cent of residential waste in the Province is paper. Fifty
per cent on the Avalon Peninsula of industrial waste is paper. I ask the
minister: Based on recommendations 18 and 49, that a disposal ban on corrugated
cardboard and paper materials be implement, which is something this party has
been asking for, for years, and it is something now that the Avalon Waste
Management Committee is asking for, when will this ban be implemented?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it might be suggested by the Opposition
critic, but over here we are the government and we act on these issues, and we
are acting on that issue as a matter of fact.
As a matter of fact, he will read in the paper next week the call for a
Province-wide ban on wastepaper and cardboard. That is going to be brought
forward within the next week or so. Also, before you call the ban, you have to
know that you are going to have equipment in place around the Province to take
care of the problem. That is what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, and we have been
diligently working on a solution to that problem as we have been on a whole
range of other solutions to waste management.
Unlike the critic who always talks about the problem, we talk about the
solution.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I rose in the House to ask the Minister of Works,
Services and Transportation about providing communications on the Trans-Labrador
Highway. Frankly, people in Labrador were outraged at the minister's response,
that he was going to provide two Fringe 45 radios for 600 kilometres of road;
radios, I might add, that 99 per cent of the population do not know how to use,
which leads us to believe that, on the issue of communications, the minister
himself is on the fringe because he is definitely not in the high-tech loop.
I want to ask the minister: When will he provide satellite phones? Because we
have done some work on this and a satellite phone, including the pole, the solar
panel, the sign, the case for the phone, the phone itself, the satellite unit
and antenna, would cost $3,975 each for a total of $49,000 to provide great
coverage for emergencies along the Trans-Labrador Highway, that could cut the
response time for emergency people in half.
I ask the minister: When will he be announcing, given the cost, that these
emergency satellite phones will be installed on the Trans-Labrador Highway?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the issue of communication on the
Trans-Labrador Highway has been around for awhile and I guess what I have done
is accepted the advice from the experts in terms of the communications, the
engineers within the department, and that is the system we went with.
To update the people, I am arranging a meeting, actually, with -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. BARRETT: I am concerned about the communications on the
Trans-Labrador Highway. No matter what you do in terms of satellite phones or
whatever system you use, you are going to have great distances when there is no
communication. I am arranging a meeting now with Aliant Telecom. I am meeting
with the President of Aliant Telecom, and one of the issues we have on the
agenda is looking at the whole issue of cellular phone coverage in the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is one of the issues that we will be
addressing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That sounds like a stall tactic to me, I say to the minister. This technology
I am talking about with the solar panels can be installed immediately. It is
available for $49,000. That would put communications, at the furthest point from
each other, at twenty kilometres, a great system that could be put in place. By
the way, I say to the minister, $49,000 equals about thirteen days interest on
the $97 million that you took from the Trans-Labrador Highway.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. COLLINS: Again, I ask the minister to take his responsibilities
seriously. Live up to the commitments made to the people in Labrador. Install
these phones forty kilometres apart, at a sum of $49,000. That is the cost. I
have the information. You have not done anything about that as yet, so I will
provide you with the information.
What I want to know from you today, given the cost that I have just outlined
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the member to get to his question.
MR. COLLINS: - when will you start to install these phones?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: I indicated to the hon. member that communication and the
lack of communication on the Trans-Labrador Highway is an important issue, and I
indicated that I was going to meet with one of the great companies in this
country, and one of the great companies in this Province, that have been around
for a long, long time. It used to be Newfoundland Telephone but now it is Aliant
Canada. I am hoping that these people will look at it, and not only look at it
in terms of Labrador but other areas of the Province where we are lacking in
terms of cellular phones, and we will do the best thing possible for the people
of Labrador in terms of communication on the Trans- Labrador Highway.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table for your information
today the 2000-2001 Annual Report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing
Corporation. Copies have been forwarded for distribution to members through the
Clerk's office.
Also, I wish to note, Mr. Speaker, that the annual report for the year ending
March 31, 2002, of the corporation will be tabled when the House reconvenes in
the spring session.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to statutory requirement, I am pleased to present the Annual Report,
2001-2002, of The Public Service Commission, on behalf of the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with
Section 13 of the Auditor General Act, I
hereby table the Report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ending March
31, 2002.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion. I move,
pursuant to Standing Order 47, that the debate or further consideration on the
resolution on Bill 7 respecting the raising of money by way of loan by the
Province shall not be further adjourned and that further consideration of any
resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses,
section or sections,
schedule or
schedules,
preamble or
preambles, title or titles, or whatever else might be
related to Bill 7, shall be the first business of the Committee of Supply and
not shall not be further postponed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the retired
teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARDING: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the retired
teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador, to this Legislature here assembled. The
prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is that government will give consideration
to increasing the pensions of retired teachers in this Province.
I am sure we all agree that all retirees need sufficient benefits to maintain
a decent standard of living, and that regular increases are essential. In the
case of retired teachers, they have not received a pension increase since
January, 1989. In that year alone, the increase of 2.5 per cent did not even
offset the Consumer Price Index of 3.6 per cent. From 1990 to 2002, the CPI has
increased by 29.5 per cent. This amount alone deducted from the pensions of 11
per cent of retired teachers who are living below the poverty line is
intolerable.
Many of these teachers devoted a lifetime to their profession in educating
the children of this Province. These teachers, back when salaries were low and
conditions far from ideal, were performing the very same important service as
our teachers of today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to give serious consideration to this
petition and take immediate positive action on behalf of the retired teachers of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am please today to rise and present a petition on behalf of some 1,118
residents of the District of Port au Port. The prayer of the petition reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,
in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the
District of Port au Port, humbly sweareth;
WHEREAS with the redistribution of seats in 1996, the former District of
Stephenville disappeared; and
WHEREAS the residents of the former District of Stephenville were
redistributed to the districts of St. George's and Port au Port; and
WHEREAS the name of the District of St. George's was subsequently changed
to the District of St. George's - Stephenville East; and
WHEREAS the name of the District of Port au Port was not changed to reflect
this new reality;
We, the undersigned residents of the District of Port au Port, do hereby
petition the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador to change the name of the
district from Port au Port to the District of Port au Port - Stephenville West.
And as is duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition today. In fact, this issue
arose shortly after the redistribution of seats in the last electoral boundaries
review, and upon approaching your office, Mr. Speaker, in determining what
process should be followed, first of all, we engaged a process whereby there was
a survey done of the district to determine if, in fact, there was sufficient
interest to move forward with this. Subsequent to that, I did arrange to have
this petition developed and circulated, and as I see here today, there are some
1,118 people who have signed the petition. I certainly support this. I think it
is reflective of the wishes of the people of the district and I have made sure
to ascertain that it does, in fact, reflect their wishes. I am very pleased
today to present this on their behalf.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents in
my district. I will just read the prayer of the petition.
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has not provided rate
increases for Public Service Pensioners since 1989; and
WHEREAS there are many of these individuals who have been forced to retire as
a result of a disability or illness at a young age; and
WHEREAS in many cases their only source of income is the Public Service
Pension Plan; and
WHEREAS the effects of inflation have significantly reduced their buying
power, having no salary adjustment for over thirteen years;
THEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to increase the rate of benefits payable to disabled pensioners throughout the
Public Service Pension Plan.
Mr. Speaker, in this sitting of the House we have introduced several bills
dealing with the inflationary adjustments to people in the Public Service
Pension, covered by the Public Service Pension Plan, and those covered by the
Teachers' Pension Plan. I think that reflects an acknowledgment that inflation
does have a way of eating away at the purchasing power of people's pension
benefits.
There is a particular group of pensioners out there, those who have availed
of the disability provisions in the pension plan, and many of them may have
found themselves disabled and unable to work at ages such as thirty or forty,
and who normally would have had an opportunity to contribute to the pension plan
for thirty or thirty-five years. Someone who might retire at age sixty-five, a
normal retirement age, might live for another fifteen or twenty years and their
pension would maintain a significant amount of purchasing power, or at least an
amount of purchasing power much greater than someone who has to start receiving
a permanent pension arrangement at the young age of forty or forty-five, who, by
the time they, in fact, get sixty-five, their pension has very little purchasing
power. If it were not for the provisions of the Old Age Security system, they
would find themselves basically at a starvation level.
I say, Mr. Speaker, this petition represents the views of many people who are
long-time public servants, in some cases, who have found themselves at a very
young age unable to continue to contribute to the workforce because of an
illness. I think these are people who have a very special requirement because of
the accelerated erosion that they find in their pension plan.
I ask this House, and this government, to give consideration to these special
group of people who are among, I say, Mr. Speaker - they are, in fact, and I
acknowledge - they are among other retirees who have not received pension
adjustments. But, some of these other retirees may have reached the age of
sixty-five and had an opportunity to build a significant contribution to their
plans and their income levels would be much higher than some of the people
affected by this petition.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of residents of
Bishop's Falls, Grand Falls, Trinity Bay, including Clarenville, and places of
that nature, from a wide range of areas around the Province, Mr. Speaker, on the
topic of drug coverage for MS drugs. I will read the
preamble and the prayer.
WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program only provides
medication coverage for seniors under the Senior Citizens' Drug Subsidy
Program and for people on income support; and
WHEREAS all citizens in other Canadian provinces can receive assistance with
these high cost MS drugs, using a co-payment or sliding scale program, not
limited to social assistance income levels; and
WHEREAS these drugs can significantly improve the quality of life for people
with MS;
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government
to implement a co-payment or sliding scale program for these high cost drugs so
that people in this Province can get financial assistance, as is the case in
every other Canadian province.
Mr. Speaker, I have risen in this House many, many times. I have presented
petitions containing thousands and thousands of names from people practically
all across this Province, calling for government to do something about the
situation as it exists today, for people who suffer from MS, who do not have
coverage for the high cost drugs.
Again, Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous, as I have said in the past, that
hard-working people of this Province have to ruin themselves financially before
this government will step in and provide any kind of assistance whatsoever.
I want to point out also, Mr. Speaker, that I encourage each and every person
around this Province who suffers from MS, or has family members or friends who
suffer from MS, to contact their MHA and let them know that this is an issue
that they want addressed in order to provide protection for the people of the
Province who do not have any way of paying for these drugs, other than by
cashing their RRSPs, by spending any income they may have so that it reduces
them to income support levels, or by cashing and spending any money they may
have put aside in their children's education fund before this government will
help out.
As I have repeated on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, this government takes the
position that they cannot afford to cover these types of drugs. Well, I want to
make it very clear to the people of the Province and to this government, that is
not the case at all; because this government, by its own admission, will step in
and help individuals with the purchase of these drugs once the persons
themselves reduce them and their families to financial ruin. Then this
government will step in. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. People in this
Province should be entitled to the same benefits that people in every other
province in this country can look forward to.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, to clue up, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair that people in this
Province have the same rights, and enjoy the same support levels for their
purchase of these drugs as every other Canadian citizen enjoys. It is time that
this government took this issue seriously and did something about it, and I
would urge them to do it sooner rather than later because people in this
Province have been suffering long enough.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to present yet another petition from
residents in my area who are complaining about the deplorable road conditions.
This particular petition, I will read the petition first, Mr. Speaker.
We, the undersigned residents of Nipper's Harbour of the District of Baie
Verte, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to upgrade and pave our roads.
The deplorable and unfit conditions of the roads in our area make travelling to
and from school unsafe for our children as well as jeopardize the safety fo the
travelling public, hurt economic growth opportunities, and portray a lack of
commitment to rural areas of our Province.
Mr. Speaker, we continue to present these petitions on behalf of people
throughout my district and around the Province, who year after year still
complain that after all these years of being a Province of Canada, that we still
have gravel roads in our districts and throughout the Province. As a matter of
fact, Mr. Speaker, there are still over 900 kilometres of gravel road throughout
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the year 2002. Still, at the same
time, there are some 1,500 to 1,600 kilometres of old pavement that has to be
changed, that is twenty-five to thirty years old. The problem still exists, Mr.
Speaker, and it is still growing.
In this particular instance, the community of Nipper's Harbour has been and
is contributing to the economy of this Province. It is flourishing, actually, as
a fishing community, and has for a number of years. The letter that the mayor
has written to me just a short while ago talked about their community, and how
they feel they have paid their fair share, and after so many years still no
pavement on a seventeen kilometre stretch of road leading to that community.
Mr. Speaker, just this past summer, just to bring it up to scratch, the fact
is that the town is being reasonable - and they have been reasonable and very
patient, of course in not having payment still, after all of this time - they
asked for some upgrading of the road just so that it would be passable and be
decent to drive over. The simple quote that comes from the people at the depots
on the peninsula, who are doing the best they can with what they have, the
people on the graders, on the equipment, say it is a waste of time to send a
grader over there because there is nothing left to grade. They are down to
bedrock. That is the reality of what is happening in rural parts of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
So, the people in Nipper's Harbour are just asking for their fair share,
not for a double-lane highway, just for a little bit. Even the upgrading that
they asked for this summer, when there was only a small amount - and the
minister knows - of some Class B or Class C material sent over to keep people
quiet, when the fact is they could have at least sent over some decent material
so the appropriate amount of material could have been put on that road so it
would not be like a washboard after just two or three days of grading it.
Year after year they continue to say: Give us our fair share. At least
upgrade the road, and then hopefully do some pavement. They do not expect
everything overnight, but they do expect a bit. This community has contributed
to the economy of this Province and they are going to continue to do so. That is
the good side of the story. The bad side is that they deserve at least some
upgrading on this road. I am here asking, on their behalf today, that this is
given priority.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the Orders of the Day, I
want to make a couple of motions: one, a notice of motion for Thursday, December
18, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., and the companion motion to that,
that we not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, for today, I move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. nor at
10:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11,
that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 17, 2002.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
It is moved and seconded, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not
adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 17, 2002.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 2, Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 25,
An Act To Amend
The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill25 be now read a third
time.
The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to make a couple of observations on Bill 25 before it passes
third reading. As I understand, this act will provide for the appointment of an
Information and Privacy Commissioner to conduct reviews and hear complaints
under the Access to Information Act.
I was noticing in the bill, and maybe the minister can make some comment on
this, that the tenure of the person who will be appointed eventually to this
position, the individual will be an officer of this House. The bill provides for
that, and for staff and things of that nature. I am just wondering if the
minister has any comment to make as it regards to tenure? I am not quite certain
if this is like this with all recent House appointments, I really cannot recall,
but this appointment is for a two-year term. Now it is renewable for a further
two years, so I suppose, in theory, you could call it a four-year appointment,
but it seems to me that a two-year tenure for a position of this nature, for an
officer of the House, is rather short. I do not know. I did not check the
legislation to see what the Ombudsman is, or the Clerk, the Auditor General,
some of those positions, but my memory tells me that they are significantly in
excess of a two-year renewable term, and I raise that. Maybe there is a logical
explanation for it, and maybe nobody has any concerns about it except myself, in
which case I do not propose to carry on a filibuster and not allow the bill to
pass, or anything of that nature, but my concern is that I do not know if you
can attract, you know, the quality of person that you would want to carry out
those reviews with a term that, at least on the surface, does not appear to have
much tenure to it.
Now, I realize that the work that the person will do is review and hold
hearings on requests for information and so on, but it seems to me that this is
a substantive and substantial position and that the person who would choose to
fill it would perhaps want some longer degree of security than a two-year
renewable term.
That was the concern that came to my mind, and I would be interested in
hearing the minister's view.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, in regard to that matter, the term of the review commissioner's
position came about subsequent, I guess, to the principle concern of this bill,
which was separating the role of the Ombudsman from the review commissioner.
That was what, I guess you might say, drove this amendment that we are seeking
in the first instance. They wanted to separate the Ombudsman or the Citizens'
Representative from this person. The reason, of course, that is of major concern
is to put us in a position that we will be able to proclaim the new act, which,
until we get this straightened out, is great difficulty - proclaiming
an act
without even having a review commissioner in place. That is what started the
discussions.
Following that decision where I had discussions myself with the Leader of the
Opposition, actually, to explain the purpose of the amendment and where we
wanted to go with this and why, and there was no disagreement in that regard, it
became an issue then, after that initial decision, as to what the term would be.
The reason two was chosen - and it became a subject of conversation in the
Internal Economy Commission. There was a meeting, in fact, where I met with the
IEC to explain why we were doing this and there were discussions - I believe the
Member for Ferryland was also there on that particular day as a representative
of the Opposition party - at which time we discussed a two-year concept versus a
six- or seven-year concept. The reason being, we are not exactly sure, and the
IEC will play a major role in this, as to whether we think the review
commissioner need even be a full-time, five-day-a-week, eight-hour-a-day
position, or maybe it might even be a position, for example, where it is just as
the need arises.
For example, if you determine in year one, based upon the information that
goes through and the number of files, that you only have two appeals in the run
of a year, maybe you are not into a situation where you need someone on a
full-time basis that you are paying substantial salaries to and really you
cannot justify that. So, the consensus that day was: Let's take a two-year
term rather than walk into a six-year term.
In the case of the Ombudsman, the Citizens' Representative, we pretty well
knew that we were going to have a full-time occupation in order to do it, but in
this case we are not sure whether it will be one appeal or 100 appeals, so we
thought, rather than get ourselves into something long-term, six years, we take
that approach; and the IEC, of course, will play a major role in it - in fact,
history proves to be for the commissioner.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just wish to rise for a few moments to speak to Bill 25,
An Act To Amend
The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act.
As indicated in second reading of this bill, this is largely legislation that
we would support on this side of the House. We have heard, of course, many
frustrating accounts over the past several years, of experiences by individuals,
members of the public, members of the media, members of the Opposition, who have
attempted to obtain information with respect to information requests from a
variety of government departments, only to be found that obviously either the
responses themselves or the response time or the quality of information that was
being forwarded to those who had requested the information only led to more
dissatisfaction and more complaints and more questions being asked.
I guess, Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that the appointment of a dedicated
individual, a commissioner, to deal perhaps in greater details specifically with
these requests - and, as I understand it, deal with privacy issues as well -
perhaps it is in keeping with the spirit of the requests generally, because we
are seeking in some cases sensitive information and information that in many
case is important to the public, but to have a dedicated individual specifically
appointed for this particular reason seems to me to be in keeping with the
overall spirit of the new legislation that has been brought forward, namely the
Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act. Largely, on this side of
the House, we do generally support the spirit of this legislation.
I would mention as well that it is interesting to note that in
section 1.(
n) in the definition section, there is a definition provision of the officers of
the House of Assembly. When we read the
definitions, they include the following:
the Speaker of the House, obviously, the Clerk of the House, the Chief Electoral
Officer, the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Members' Interests, the
Citizens' Representative or the Ombudsman, the Child and Youth Advocate, and
now the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and a position to be designated to
be an officer, or our positions, designated to be officers of the House.
It is interesting to note that really there is a select group of individuals,
Mr. Speaker, who meet this definition, and obviously with the designation, or
with the appointment, comes the responsibility to the House of Assembly, to all
Members of the House of Assembly, and, in so doing, to all of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
We certainly view this - to use words that were used in the past - as
progressive legislation in keeping with the spirit of the act that is being
brought forward, and we look forward in the near future to working with the
individual on behalf of the citizens of this Province to ensure that requests
that are made and that information received and that privacy itself, obviously,
is being respected throughout the process, but we look forward to working with
this individual to ensure, in an overall sense, that the interests and the
well-being of the people of this Province are being protected.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Access To Information And
Protection Of Privacy Act, " read a third time, ordered passed and its
title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 25)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 3, Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 29.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act No. 3,"
read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill
29)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 4, Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 26,
An Act To Amend
The Teachers' Association Act.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 26 be now read a third
time.
The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise to put a few final
comments to this bill, with regard to the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers'
Association.
As I said when the bill was first introduced, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill
that is coming forth at the request of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers'
Association, at the request of the government. It comes on the heels of some
very good reforms within that association, whereby they have gone to direct
democracy in electing their executive for the upcoming year. They have done
great strides in the bi-annual convention that they hold now every two years
instead of an annual one.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that this association is perhaps one
of the oldest in this particular Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They
have certainly given great service to this Province. It started off, I suppose,
as service to a country, now as service to this Province. They have moved the
teaching profession along in very, very modern ways at different times
throughout their history and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is indeed one
of those times - again, a defining moment in their history - where they have
changed their approach.
Their numbers are declining but their influence is becoming greater and
greater with each passing day, Mr. Speaker. Certainly this bill, we on this side
of the House support it wholeheartedly and we certainly wish that this bill move
forward and that the fortunes of this particular Teachers' Association will
continue in the successful ways in which they have so far brought along that
particular association.
The teachers of this Province, Mr. Speaker, are entrusted with the future of
our most valuable resource, the children of this Province. The teachers of
Newfoundland and Labrador do an absolutely fantastic job, and I look forward to
the years to come when again this association will certainly distinguish
themselves in the service of our young people.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Association
Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order
Paper. (Bill 26)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 5, Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 22.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act,"
read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill
22)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 6, Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 30,
An Act
Respecting Interjurisdictional Support Orders.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 30 be now read a third
time.
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would just like to rise for a few minutes on Bill 30,
An Act Respecting
Interjurisdictional Support Orders. It is a piece of legislation that we dealt
with in some detail yesterday, Mr. Speaker, during the Committee stage, when
both the minister and myself and my colleague from Lewisporte had an opportunity
to raise some concerns and to raise some questions with respect to the
legislation in question.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps again it is fair to say that this legislation is
welcomed legislation in the sense that we are now just keeping in step with
other jurisdictions in Canada, and obviously the benefit to the people of this
Province is such that support orders that are granted in this Province may then
be enforced in other jurisdictions. It has a reciprocal feature to it, to allow
those who are entitled to support just because the person, the payor, may live
outside the jurisdiction, or indeed outside this country, does not necessarily
preclude that person from his or her obligation and responsibility to the
support of his or her spouse or children.
So, obviously, this type of legislation is in keeping with what we find in
other jurisdictions and, again, is ultimately for the benefit of those
individuals who have already been found to have been worthy of the receipt of
support from individuals who perhaps just, for whatever reason, have chosen to
leave Newfoundland and Labrador and go elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, the issues that came up perhaps in some detail yesterday dealt
with - and I will just refer to a couple of them - the issue of parentage, and
we look at
section 12 of the legislation. It states, "Where a child's
parentage is in issue and has not previously been determined, the court may
decide that issue." A point was raised - I know the minister responded to
it - that the wording, in the minister's opinion, as found in
section 12, was
deemed to be adequate. We on this side, perhaps, raised the possibility of when
this issue of parentage was being questioned, that the court ought to be, by
legislation, put in a situation to deal with the issue and therefore that could
have been done simply by changing the word may to shall, obviously imposing upon
the court the legal requirement to deal and to determine the issue of parentage
before rendering its decision on the overall issue of the support application.
The issue of appeal was also raised, Mr. Speaker, as I recall, and it was
felt, indeed - and I know it was questioned by my colleague as well - that the
appropriate appellate court, in some cases, ought to have been the Court of
Appeal. Obviously, if a decision was before either the Trial Division of the
Supreme Court or the Unified Family Court, any appeal being rendered upon a
decision of those courts would obviously be the Court of Appeal. However, when
matters under this act were before the Provincial Court of Newfoundland, one has
to question why the appellate court is then the Court of Appeal when obviously
the next court in line, Mr. Speaker, is the Trial Division of the Supreme Court.
Points and concerns with respect to distance and cost in particular were raised,
but it appears that the minister felt that the wording again, as found in the
appeals section, was deemed to be adequate and it looks as if the particular
section will go through as found, I believe, in
section 37 or in
section 38.
Mr. Speaker, simply to say in conclusion, I guess, the legislation is
positive, it is welcomed, it will provide a real benefit to those spouses,
parents and children who must rely on a reciprocal arrangement to have support
orders enforced. From that point of view we will indeed be supporting the
legislation, albeit with some deficiencies as we see it, but nevertheless it is
important that we see legislation like this move forward so that the interests
of the recipient, spouses and children of our Province can be protected.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a comment. I appreciate the dialogue and the comments of the member
opposite. I think the concerns that he raised were indeed legitimate concerns,
but, as referenced, I felt they had been adequately addressed and we are dealing
here with a uniform national model that, albeit we are not sure if there are any
warts in it right now. Only over the course of time will we determine that, but
it is all in the best interest.
I am pleased to see as well that they see this for what it is. It is a very
positive piece of legislation that is intended to help people who have support
orders and are in need of support, principally for their children. I appreciate
the comments of the member opposite.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to say a few words at third reading on Bill 30,
An Act Respecting
Interjurisdictional Support Orders. It is a very important piece of legislation
that brings us into line with a national scheme to ensure that people in this
Province can have access to the courts to get very important, necessary and, in
fact, vital support for a spouse - and, in particular, spouse and children - in
the event of a marriage breakdown, or in the event of a right to support under
the Divorce Act, or under our Family Law Act. This provides an opportunity to do
that.
Obviously, it is a highly technical piece of legislation in terms of how it
will operate. The key importance here is access; in our view, Mr. Speaker, that
people have access to the process, that they have speedy access to the process,
and that there be available advice to people in terms of how to go through the
process.
I hope that minister - I know the minister is likely to designate the support
enforcement agency. That is one agency in Corner Brook that people have dealt
with over the years in trying to get support enforcement orders, support orders
enforced, and collect the actual support itself. We have not heard much concern
expressed lately, but there was a time when people were having great difficulty
getting through to that agency to get things going. Things seem to have improved
in that score. I hope that this does not create a serious administrative burden
that they are not able to handle. I hope that the minister is very cognizant of
that and will ensure that sufficient staff resources are available, sufficient
training for those staff resources is also available, and that, in addition to
the facilities of the Support Enforcement Agency, that the court staff around
the Province - whether provincial court or supreme court staff who may be on the
front lines when people come looking for information - are also sufficiently
aware, informed and trained as to be able to provide the kind of information
that would be necessary so that people, we are mostly talking about women here,
so that the women who need support for themselves and their children will have
access to this process in a timely way with the kind of advice that they may
need to fill out the forms. We have not seen any of the forms yet or any of the
documentation that is required. Sometimes these can be complicated, and we would
certainly like to see someone able to give the kind of advice that people need
so that they can make use of this process, which is designed to assist them and
to facilitate obtaining support orders in other provinces and territories of
Canada.
We are in a much more mobile environment today than we were five years ago or
ten years ago. We have people traveling, very easily, to other provinces to
work. We have large numbers of people, residents of this Province who are
already working in Fort McMurray or in Red Deer or in Calgary or in Ontario,
British Columbia and other places. It is very easy for residents of this
Province to appear in British Columbia, in Prince George, or in Fort McMurray
with a job on a recommendation from a friend of theirs. So clearly, that kind of
mobility speaks to the need for a system such as this, so that families who may
be left behind can access the kind of support that they need to look after
themselves and their children.
We certainly support this legislation, and I encourage the minister to ensure
that the follow-up is in place to make sure there is proper education and
training for staff resources in his department, in the courts and in the Support
Enforcement Agency.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I understand this goes into force early in the
new year. Although it says that it is a date to be proclaimed by the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council, maybe the minister can address that in closing,
if he can tell us when exactly this might be proclaimed. Is the system ready to
go in the first part of the new year or will there be some delay while that is
getting into force, what provisions he has in mind to inform the public that
this provision is available, and where they might go to get support?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the intent is, once passed, it will be proclaimed. So, it
will go into force on January 1, 2003. In terms of information, all court sites
will be notified, of course, that the law is now law, and the Support
Enforcement Agency, of course, will be doing their PR piece to let people now
about the new system as well. We expect there may be a few bumps trying to get
the system worked out and get it working smoothly, but we are certainly intent,
like the rest of Canada, to proceed with the matter on January 1, 2003.
On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Interjurisdictional Support
Orders," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order
Paper. (Bill 30)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 7, third reading of Bill 31,
An Act To Amend The Fishing
Industry Collective Bargaining Act.
Motion, third reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 31)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker
I rise this evening to pass a few closing comments, I guess, on third reading
on Bill 31,
An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. As I
said, when I spoke in second reading, Mr. Speaker - and some of my colleagues
said at the time - certainly, we will be supporting this bill when the time
comes. In saying that we will support it, Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair
once again to make it perfectly clear to everybody why we are supporting this
bill at this time, why we are supporting the amendment to the Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act and, I guess, as well, to point out why we have the
amendments, that we discussed just a little less than two years ago, to the
Fishing Collective Bargaining Act. What we are doing today is really just
amending the act to allow for the amendments of the spring of 2001 to continue
on for one more year.
Mr. Speaker, as we know, as all members of the House know, and I suspect
everybody in the fishing industry knows, who is paying attention to what we are
doing here today, what we are discussing is the Final Offer Selection process of
collective bargaining in the fishing industry. Everybody would know, I expect,
or they should know anyway, that the Final Offer Selection came about in the
fishing industry as a result of major labour disputes in the mid-1990s,1995,
1996 and especially in 1997. Major problems within the industry and trying to
arrive at a negotiated settlement for fish prices almost always involved delays
in the season. As I said, 1997 in particular resulted in a major delay in the
season's opening where we were up into July fishing the bulk of our crab, and
certainly ran into problems on shrimp negotiations later that year as well. With
a major development in the shrimp industry at that time, I think many in the
industry and in government, on both sides of the House, foresaw greater problems
down the road and wanted to see if there was not some better way of doing
business and settling price disputes in the industry.
At the time, rightly or wrongly - I believe rightly - there was a decision
made by the industry, on the recommendation of the Vardy task force, to
implement Final Offer Selection as the forum, I suppose, to resolve disputes. We
saw where the process involved an independent market analysis providing
information to both sides of the industry on where the market was at that time
of the year and where it was expected to go in the ensuing months. Mr. John
Sackton - I believe his named was referenced here the other day in debate -
certainly has done that job over the past number of years, since Final Offer
Selection came into being in the fishing industry and has done a commendable
job, I believe, in trying to take steps down the road toward dealing with some
of the mistrust that has plagued the industry prior to 1998. I think it is fair
to say that there is still some of that there, but certainly not to the degree
that it was back in the early to mid-1990s.
That, I guess, is the context of our debate. That was the situation that
resulted in Final Offer Selection, and what we saw after Final Offer Selection
came to the fishing industry was a period of relative stability, relative peace.
I will say relative stability and relative peace because everything in the
fishing industry is relative to some other time. While we did see some problems
in the past five years under Final Offer Selection, relatively speaking they
were minor and insignificant compared to what we saw in the previous years.
For those who do not know, I suppose, Final Offer Selection really - you
know, the negotiating process still takes place. The fishing industry in the
form of FANL and the fishermen's union, the FFAW, still go to the table, still
negotiate for a period of time, still look at the market information and still
try to arrive at a negotiated settlement. However, in the event that, that
cannot happen, Mr. Speaker, both parties at a predetermined date, submit their
final offers, their final negotiating positions to the arbitrator, who then
decides which one of the final offers will be the price schedule, I guess - for
lack of a better way of putting it - for that particular species for the period
of time defined under the negotiations.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, that process did provide relative stability
throughout that time period, and as I said, it was relative, relatively stable,
relatively peaceful. That is not to say there were not problems. That is not to
say there were not disputes. That is not to say there were not stoppages in
harvesting and processing, some of them agreed to by both parties and some of
them not agreed to by any party. I guess, that is probably the best way of
putting it.
Certainly, the summer of 2001, early fall of 2001, I guess, saw the biggest
problem that we have seen since Final Offer Selection came to this industry. At
that time, we saw the processors and the fishermen agree to a summer shutdown in
late June. They agreed that they would shut down the shrimp industry at that
time because of poor market conditions, because of quality and yield problems
that are associated with a summer fishery. They agreed the fishery would close
down at that time with a view to reopening later in the year, in late August or
early September. As we all know now, when they went back to the negotiating
table to try and reopen the fishery, fishermen came to the realization, I think,
that the price
schedule that was there was something that was not affordable,
that they could not afford to fish for, and that on just about every trip there
was a high likelihood that there would be money lost on each voyage.
Mr. Speaker, there was, at that time, a decision - I do not know if it was
collectively or individually, but some of the fleets anyway decided they would
not sail, and FANL looked on that as a strike. They looked on some developments
in the crab fishery later that fall, in particular in the small boat sector,
disputes over post-season payments - for the lack of a better way to putting it
- monies over and above the negotiated price that processors sometimes pay to
fishermen individually, after the fact. There was a dispute over that, where
protest lines were put up in front of some processing facilities, and again FANL
looked on that as a strike, or some form of strike, a labour action anyway. I
guess that is what brought us to where we are today. Even though, as I said, the
Final Offer Selection form of negotiation did provide relative stability and
relative peace in the industry since 1998 up until 2001, there were problems
along the way and, you know, some of FANL's members and FANL, as an
organization, were disappointed with the way that it went and I think made their
views known, that they might consider opting out of Final Offer Selection when
the time came. That was approximately a year ago, I think, that they first
indicated that might be a possibility. Lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, we found
ourselves back in the early fall of this year, back in October, when the time
came, as it was legislated under the amendment that was made to the Fishing
Industry Collective Bargaining Act back in April of 2001, I believe it was, when
we amended this act last, there was a provision made there for either FANL or
the FFAW, either one of them, to opt out of this process at this time. Really,
even though we are amending the act today, FANL only exercised its right under
the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act back about two months ago when
they decided to opt out. I guess this is the reason why we are amending it
today.
It is not an easy thing, I guess, for government to do, to bring legislation
to the floor of the House of Assembly that takes away or amends somebody's
rights as they were given approximately just about two years ago, but we all
recognize, on this side of the House, why the government is doing what it is
doing, why they brought this legislation to the floor of the House in these past
couple of weeks. You know, we agree that we cannot go back to the pre-1998 era.
We cannot go back to the days when the mechanism for setting prices in the
fishing industry was the negotiation process that we had then; the one that led,
almost invariably, throughout the mid-1990s up until 1997, to long, extensive
and costly disputes in the fishing industry where we saw late start-up in the
season, poorer quality because of the time that we were landing it, a rush to
get it ashore, intense pressure on the processing sector to try to get it
through, intense pressure on the harvesting sector to try to get it ashore. We
do not want to go back to those days. I said that the other day in second
reading, and I feel I am compelled to say it here again today.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation. What it does, it gives
everybody in the industry - the fishermen, the processors - an opportunity over
the next year to try and fix what was wrong with the Final Offer Selection
process or to try to find another system to replace the Final Offer Selection
process.
I understand the minister said in her statements in the House and outside the
House that she will instigate a review of the Fishing Industry Collective
Bargaining Act, and I commend her for that. As I said to the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture, I hope that, concurrent with that, coincidental with
that, he would continue his discussions with FANL and with the FFAW, the
fishermen and the processors, to try and see if this can be resolved before
September 1, 2003, when the opportunity comes again for FANL or the FFAW to opt
out of Final Offer Selection.
As I said, this is a stop-ap measure. It is something that only puts off - if
nothing is done in the intervening period between now and next fall, we will
almost invariably, almost certainly, I mean, find ourselves back in some similar
predicament next fall.
Mr. Speaker, with that I think I will conclude my remarks. As I said, we
will, on this side of the House, support this amendment to the Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act because we do not want to see the chaos that we saw in
the 1990s; we do not want to see the chaos that we saw in 1997. We do not want
to see a repeat of that. A $500 million industry, our shrimp and crab industry,
is too important to the economy of this Province for us to jeopardize it with
labour disputes.
Having said that, I do not think that we are taking away anybody's right to
collective bargaining. We are not imposing anything, really, on anybody, other
than they have to face, I guess - in the absence of a resolution between
themselves - they have to deal with binding arbitration.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is too draconian, not by a long shot. It is
something that many in our economy would like to see. Many facets of our economy
would like to see that type of approach. It is one that has worked over the past
four years, with some bugs. The challenge now for the Minister of Labour, the
Minister of Fisheries, and the leadership in the processing and the harvesting
sector, is to find a way of fixing the model that we have used for the last four
years, or finding a way of replacing it.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will again say that we will be supporting this
legislation and thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would just like to say a few words here at third reading on the
legislation, Bill 31, which amends the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining
Act to continue the Final Offer Selection process to establish the prices for
fish species in the Province.
It is important legislation, Mr. Speaker, although it is an interim measure.
I have asked the minister - the Minister of Fisheries, at least - if he wants to
address this at third reading, to talk about a longer-term solution here.
Clearly, it deserves our support because it is legislation which ensures that
this season there will be a Final Offer Selection processor arbitration
available to the fishermen and fishers of the Province, the fishermen's union
and their representatives, to ensure that we have a stable crab fishery in the
first instance. This is the one that we are most concerned about right off, so
that the Final Offer Selection process is unique to the arbitration of fish
prices in this Province, Mr. Speaker, which allows parties to go through the
negotiation process to try and establish what is a fair and reasonable price for
the species. It has been used for crab, it has been used for shrimp, it has been
used for cod, to establish a price.
The key for fishers has always been, for the last 500 years in this Province,
the price of fish. The price of fish is the key determinant of what kind of
income is going to be available to fishers to pay for their boats, their fuel,
their gear, and to pay their crew. In short, they look after their boats for the
long haul, maintenance, repairs, all of the expenses that go with that.
Everything turns on the price of fish, and obviously the ability of them to look
after themselves and their families all turns on the price of fish.
When it comes down to negotiating, the fact that Final Offer Selection is
available is a unique kind of process that really makes parties try to give the
best offer they possibly can. The reason they do is because, if they can be as
reasonable as possible, the chance of their last bargaining position being
accepted by the arbitrator is greater. If they are miles apart and if the
parties go into a Final Offer Selection bargaining and they take a bargaining
stance - well, we know the market price is really $2.50 but we are going to
offer $1.85, we will go to arbitration and maybe the arbitrator will split the
difference. Well, in Final Offer Selection there is no such thing as splitting
the difference. There is no such thing as averaging the last position of the
fishermen and the last position of the processor and say: Well, okay, we will
meet them halfway. That is the expectation that often comes when you have
interest arbitration. We see it in the police act, we see it in the firefighters
act, you go and try to convince an arbitrator that the wages you are asking for
are the best and the other side goes in and the government usually says: No, we
can only afford so much, and the arbitrator comes somewhere in the middle. That
encourages a particular style of bargaining. It encourages a style of bargaining
that says: Well, we will offer the lowest we possibly can and that is the
bargaining position we will take, and in the end we hope that the arbitration
result will come closer to our bargaining position that the other.
With the Final Offer Selection, the incentives work the other way. The
incentive is to be as reasonable as possible, to come as close as possible to
what the true market value of a commodity is, what the true value is, so that if
your position is as reasonable as you can be and the other party is out to
lunch, well, then, it is the last position that you put that is going to be
accepted by the arbitrator, and not that of the other side.
It is a process that has been tried as a pilot project initially. It was
recommended to the parties by a task force set up in 1997-1998, brought to this
House, established as a pilot project through legislation, then made a little
more permanent with still the option to opt out.
When it came to light that FANL not only was going to opt out this year, even
when they came to give up on their attempt to get certified as bargaining agents
for all the processors in the Province, even when they gave that up in early
December, they indicated an intention not to return to the Final Offer Selection
process. That caused a certain amount of, I will not call it panic, but a very,
very high level of concern in the fishing industry in the Province, particularly
on the side of the fishermen's union and the individual fishers, the shrimp
committees and crab committees, all of those who had a stake in making sure that
this system worked well. The only complaints we have heard, Mr. Speaker, are
from the processors. That is where we have heard the complaints.
AN HON. MEMBER: Not all of them, Jack.
MR. HARRIS: Not all of them, the member says. Yes, we have heard some
complaints from the Official Opposition. They do not seem to be very happy, but,
in terms of the fishing industry, what we have seen is that the fishermen's
union and the shrimp committees and the fishermen want this process to continue.
They believe in this process, they believe it works. So I think this legislation
accomplishes that in the short term, and I say that intentionally. It only does
in the short term carry on the process that we put in place a couple of years
ago for one more year. I think we need a more permanent solution. I think that
we would like to hear more from all the parties as to what a permanent solution
would be. For my own self, I would think that if we legislated this as a
permanent feature, that would be a good thing, but I would not want to suggest
we do that without hearing the opinions of those who have a bigger stake in the
operation of that process from day to day.
As it stands, Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation, it is timely
legislation, and it is absolutely vital legislation, to ensure that their will
not be the kind of instability in the crab fishery that we have had in the past.
The concerns that were expressed to me, Mr. Speaker, by fishers and by
stakeholders on the fishing side of the industry, is that this is a very
important process that ought to continue. They did not want to see the kind of
damage that happened in the mid-1990s and early-1990s because it would tie up,
in particular, the crab industry where the bulk of the fishing was done in July,
when the prices were lousy, the quality was lousy in softshell and very
difficult market conditions. Even more than that, Mr. Speaker, the fact that
because this was happening, because in March and April and May and June there
were no crab available from the market in this Province, then there was a
serious deterioration in the market and the market interests in Newfoundland and
Labrador crab.
These are the three major reasons, stability of price, stability of the
industry and stability of the market, that are achieved by this Final Offer
Selection process that has worked well in the past, and we should try to find a
way to ensure that it continues to work in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to have a few words before we close debate on this particular
bill that my colleague, the Minister of Labour, brought in. It is a very
important bill for the people involved in the fishing industry in this Province,
not only today but at least for the next year. It is a bill that we were not
happy to bring into the House of Assembly but circumstances that occurred in the
past few months made it imperative that we do this when the House sat before
Christmas, because it is a good possibility that we will not open again prior to
the opening of the fishery in April.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. members opposite explained how the Final Offer
Selection model worked. We were very, very proud, Mr. Speaker, to bring in this
Final Offer Selection legislation back in 1998. It was initiated first by my
predecessor, I guess, the hon. John Efford. He hired the services of a very
intelligent and well-respected individual here in the Province, Mr. David Vardy,
to come up with some way of negotiating fish prices rather than going with the
old system that we had prior to 1997. He developed this Final Offer Selection
model. My colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, tells me
it was his piece of legislation back in 1998, so I am sorry about that. I think
it was initiated in the Department of Fisheries at that time and it fell under
his department.
Anyway, like I said, Mr. David Vardy came up with the system and it has
worked well in the past few years. Unfortunately, due to a number of
circumstances this year in the industry, FANL decided that they no longer wanted
to partake in the Final Offer Selection, and notified us of that back in
October, which forced us to have to do something, even though we were aware,
prior to October, that there was some thought of FANL pulling out. We did have a
number of discussions over the summer and into the fall and especially after the
date that they submitted their letter telling us that they were pulling out of
the system. Out of all of our conversations that we had with members of FANL
over the past few months, we could not come up with a resolution to the problem
other than the legislation that we are forced to put on the table.
That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague and I waited so long
before we presented this piece of legislation here this fall, because we were
hoping that FANL would withdraw its letter of opting out and that the system
would remain in place for another two years. We even went as far as to say that
we could - because under the old legislation if you opt in, you are in for two
years. We even offered to FANL that we could extend the opting out period for
one year and we come in this fall and change the legislation slightly to allow
them to stay in for a year, but that did not work, Mr. Speaker, and, as a
result, we are here passing a piece of legislation today.
It is not a stop-gap measure as such, as has been categorized by the
Opposition even though it is only going to be in place for one year. I am very
confident that cooler heads will prevail over the winter and that we will have
an opportunity to sit down with, not only FANL but the independent processors in
the Province, as well as the FFAW who represent all the harvesters, and that,
between us all, we can come to some reasonable resolution to this matter, and it
will work itself out for the benefit of all those involved in this very, very
important industry, the fishing industry in our Province.
Mr. Speaker, in debate in the last few days, we talked about a number of
issues. The Opposition raised a couple of issues pertaining to the industry and
led some to believe that, had we acted on a report that was submitted by Mr.
Vardy on the shrimp fishery about a year ago, that, somehow, we would have
averted what happened with FANL opting out of the Final Offer Selection. That
really, Mr. Speaker, is not the case and that is not true. Back when we had to
shut down the shrimp fishery last fall, a year ago this September past, the
government, led by myself and the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development, tried to facilitate an agreement between FANL and the union. As a
result of those talks, it was agreed upon by all three groups, government, FANL
and the union, that we would do a in-depth study of the shrimp fishery in our
Province. Since then, Mr. Vardy, along with two other individuals here in the
Province, did a report for us that had thirty-eight recommendations. The
unfortunate thing about the report, Mr. Speaker - and the members opposite
criticized me for not responding to the report immediately and that we haven't
put forward what we think should happen as a result of that report - but the
unfortunate thing about the report is that there were thirty-eight
recommendations. Of those thirty-eight recommendations, I think there were only
twelve that the provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture could act on
alone, by itself. The others pertain to FANL, processors in the Province, the
fisheries union, as well as DFO.
We are working with the other three groups to try and get everybody seated at
the table and to come to some kind of a peaceful resolution as to which of these
measures we should adopt, because there are some over which this government has
absolutely no control. There are a number of recommendations in there that only
the federal Minister of Fisheries can fix or enact or accept.
MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible)
MR. REID: The hon. Member for Bonavista South, obviously, pretends that
he has a great interest in the fishery, but he is telling me to sit down, he
does not want to listen to what I am saying. That is all right, I will continue
to talk anyway.
Mr. Speaker, we intend to bring all four groups together and, hopefully, at
the end of the day, everybody, all four groups, will realize what is in the best
interest of the fishermen and fisherwomen of this Province, and that we can
enact some of the resolutions, or the recommendations, that were made in that
report. I know I am criticized for not enacting the recommendations of that
report, but, as I said earlier, I can only deal with twelve of the thirty-eight
of them, the others I have no control over.
For example, one of the recommendations is that we should extend the length
of the processing season. The only way we can do that is try to extend the
length of the harvesting season, and that is very difficult in a Province like
ours in the middle of the North Atlantic where the climate, certainly, and the
environment play a big role as to what time of the year you can fish. According
to DFO regulations - this is only one case in point - inshore fish harvesters
cannot purchase or build a boat that is longer than 64 feet 11 inches. In fact,
many of the fishermen in the Province are restricted to vessels less than the 64
feet 11 inches. It is very difficult for those harvesters in those smaller
vessels to be out prosecuting the shrimp fishery at this time of the year, when
they are putting their lives in jeopardy.
We have been talking with the federal government, as long as I can remember,
back in 1989, to try and get them to relax their restriction on boat size,
because originally when they brought in those restrictions there was a
competitive quota, and when the gun was fired everybody went out and started
fishing the same time, and the more fish you could get the better.
Everybody today, Mr. Speaker, are under individual quotas. Therefore, the
boat length should not play a role anymore, and it should be up to the
individual fisherman or fisherwoman what size boat he or she wants to use in
getting out and harvesting their own quota. If you have 20,000 pounds of crab to
catch, it should not matter to the federal government if you catch that in an
eighteen footer or if you catch that in a hundred and eighteen footer. That
should not be the concern of DFO and Ottawa, the bureaucrats and the minister
who sit in offices 2,000 miles away from the actual fishery. I challenge the
federal minister, or any of the federal bureaucrats in Ottawa, to come down and
go out 200 miles or 240 miles with an individual in a forty-foot boat at this
time of the year and put their lives on the line. Obviously, they do not have to
do that to feed their families, but many fishermen and fisherwomen in this
Province are forced to do this because of a silly regulation that DFO has.
I do not want to take up any more time. What I am saying is that, in order to
make this fishery work, we need the co-operation not only of the federal
government; we need the co-operation of the fish processors in this Province,
along with the harvesters, and that involves the union and the government. We
are willing to sit down, Mr. Speaker, at any time with all of these groups and
try and put some order into a fishery that means so much to the people of this
Province.
In closing, while I can say it is regrettable that we have to bring in
legislation to keep the Final Offer Selection model in place for another year,
it is something that we are compelled to do and I think that most people in the
Province realize it is something that we have to do for the benefit of those
involved in the fishing industry, and the individuals in each of the communities
around this Island who depend so heavily upon the fishery for their living.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and let someone else have a few
words.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a few brief, concluding remarks, because I believe everything that needs
to said has been said. I want to thank all members in this House, Mr. Speaker,
for contributing to this very important debate on Bill 31,
An Act To Amend The
Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will not address all the ills, all the
concerns, of our fishing industry in this Province, but it is not intended to do
that. It will, in fact, guarantee that our fishing industry opens on time and it
will provide stability for our fishing industry this spring.
I represent an inland district, Grand Falls-Buchans, and I know full well
what the fishery means to Grand Falls-Buchans. Every member in this Legislature
today knows what the fishing industry means to their particular district. Even
though they might represent a district where there is no fishing being done, we
all know that fisherpeople spend their money in every district throughout our
Province.
One of the things that the Leader of the New Democratic Party said, was that
this was an interim measure. Perhaps it is, it will get us through this year,
but what I want to say today, as I committed to the other day, we are going to
undertake, as a government, a comprehensive review of the Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act, and I think that will provide an opportunity for all
of the stakeholders to express their views. In the end, we may have a stronger
act than we have today. We will hear the concerns of every side of the industry
and we will take all these into account. I feel quite certain that if it is not
in the spring sitting of the Legislature, it will be in the fall sitting, that
we will come together again and we will amend this act. For the time being, it
guarantees a lot. It guarantees that any negotiations in the fishing industry in
2003 will have to be carried out under the interest based model.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks and I think all people
around this Province will breathe a sigh of relief when this act is passed
today, because they know for certain there will not be chaos in the fishing
industry in the spring, we will have stability, and that is what this act is all
about.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective
Bargaining Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on
the Order Paper. (Bill 31)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 8, Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 23.
On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Provision Of Income And
Employment Support To The People Of The Province," read a third time,
ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 23)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 9, Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 33.
On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting An Agreement With The Newfoundland
And Labrador Medical Association," read a third time, ordered passed and
its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 33)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Motion 2, to move that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the
granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 8.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!
Bill 8.
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, I say to the Premier, I don't have my car today. I may manage to get a
ride home today, hopefully, if the weather isn't too bad. I don't want to
have to walk that far.
While I am on the topic, talking about Supplementary Supply, it is indicative
of what they spend on government policy. I am just wondering if it is the policy
of this government, as a minister of the Crown - I do not know if he is speaking
on behalf of Cabinet, on behalf of this Province - said that we should tax fish.
AN HON. MEMBER: What?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Sir.
In rural Newfoundland and Labrador today - and it is in the record of Hansard
of this House - a minister of the Crown, last night, told us that we should put
a tax on fish.
Look, people in the fishing industry, harvesters, have been hit hard enough
without this government trying to tax a resource and taking taxes. I do not
think they the ability anyway. It is federal jurisdiction, I would think, but
the Minister of Government Services and Lands, the Member for Virginia Waters,
said in this House last night, when he stood here, that they should put a tax on
the fishing resource in our Province.
MR. NOEL: How is it different?
MR. SULLIVAN: How is it different? he said. He is agreeing. People have
to pay licences and extreme costs. The government has driven the cost of
operating extremely high. The amount of fish available, they have mismanaged it,
and now to tell them they are going to catch a few thousand pounds of crab or
cod, if you ever can catch another one, or any other species -
MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) money off it. (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: He is saying you would make a lot of money off it. Sure,
you would make a lot of money. If you taxed every pound of fish you would make a
lot of money, but it should not happen, I say to the minister. This government
is wrong in trying to tax fish, and talking about it, as a minister of the
Crown, because when you speak as a minister you are speaking for government and
you should not tax it. The minister should get up and tell us, point blank, that
it is not a policy of this government to initiate action to tax the fishing
resource in our Province.
Fishing has maintained this Province since its inception. People went out on
the Grand Banks in dories. They were put out from vessels and they were told not
to come back until the dory was full. They slaved and worked hard and built a
fishery that employed over 30,000 people.
MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) tax oil?
MR. SULLIVAN: The minister is now saying what?
MR. NOEL: Why should we tax oil?
MR. SULLIVAN: Why shouldn't you tax oil?
MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inau