Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Oral Questions — 10 December 2001 (44th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIV No. 45)
2001-12-10
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 10, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 45
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure to congratulate a Corner Brook team on winning the
provincial, Senior's Men's Curling Championships.
Bas Buckle's Corner Brook Recplex rink, featuring Bob Freeman, Harvey
Holloway and Gerry Young won the title yesterday in an exciting ninth end win
over the Rick Casmey rink from Labrador City.
Mr. Speaker, this is a first time that Mr. Buckle has won the provincial
Senior Men's Championship as a skip. His rink will now represent Newfoundland
and Labrador at the National Championships in St. Thomas, Ontario, in February
Mr. Speaker, Bas Buckle has been a tireless advocate for curling in this
Province. He is the president of the provincial curling association and he was a
member of the Gary Oke rink that won back-to-back provincial mixed curling
championships in 1988 and 1989.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in congratulating Mr. Buckle
and his Corner Brook rink on winning the provincial Senior Men's Championship
and wish them well at the upcoming championships in February.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to offer congratulations to the Boys 4A Volleyball Team from
Ascension Collegiate, Bay Roberts, who captured the High School Provincial
Championship in Grand Falls over the weekend.
Nine high school teams throughout the Province competed for the title. The
Ascension team went through the tournament undefeated, posting a 3 and 0 record
in the round robin. In the crossover they defeated Queen Elizabeth of Foxtrap in
two games and in the championship match defeated Booth Memorial of St. John's
two games to one, the final game by a close fifteen to twelve score.
The eleven athletes, their coach Mr. Glen Lane, and assistant coach Mr. Fred
Simms, are to be congratulated for winning the provincial title, the first time
for this school in fifteen years. This team have worked hard throughout this
season and are a credit to the school for bringing home this honor.
I certainly would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Newfoundland and
Labrador High School Athletic Federation, the local organizers in the Grand
Falls area for sponsoring this tournament, teachers, parents, and supporters of
all teams who participated in the tournament.
Mr. Speaker, I call upon all members of this House to join me in extending
congratulations to the Boys 4A Volleyball Team from Ascension Collegiate, Bay
Roberts, for winning this provincial title.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the representatives of
the Royal Canadian Legion on their successful campaign to have the Conception
Bay North access road named the Veterans Memorial Highway -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: - to honour the memory of those who fought for this country
in various conflicts.
I think this is a very important way to pay tribute to these people.
Hopefully for years to come, as people drive along this highway, they will think
of the sacrifice these people made for our freedom.
A ceremony was organized at the beginning of the highway on Remembrance Day,
November 11, to officially establish the name as Veterans Memorial Highway, and
approximately 500 people attended. I think this is an indication of the respect
that people have for those who have given so much.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in paying tribute to
the Royal Canadian Legion for the work they continue to do in communities all
over this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On Saturday night, December 8, I attended a concert at St. Catherine's
Academy on Salmonier Line. This tremendous show was called "Christmas with
Folk of the Sea", a tremendous night of entertainment enjoyed by over 500
people including the leader of our own party, the Member for Humber West, and
the Member for the Straits and White Bay North, who co-hosted the event.
It was a top-notch night of entertainment with the different school choirs
performing beautiful Christmas favorites and then the heartwarming music of The
Folk of The Sea group. From popular ballads such as Let Me Fish Off Cape St.
Mary's to Father Jerome Hann's toe-thumping rendition of Dance in
Cape Royal. It was an unforgettable evening of Newfoundland culture and
heritage.
The Folk of The Sea are a group of fisherfolk from across Newfoundland and
Labrador who want to ensure that our history is preserved in music, song and
dance. Their purpose highlights hope, strength and unity. It is about
remembering and keeping alive a proud heritage.
I want to congratulate Mr. Jed Blackmore and the members of The Folk of The
Sea, for a job well done. Congratulations also need to go to principal Gary
Corbett and the St. Catherine's Academy school community for their commitment
to ensuring annual nights of entertainment second to none anywhere in the
Province.
A special thank you to Gus Marrie, a fisherman from Mount Carmel, St. Mary's
Bay, and Michael Dobbin, a fisherman from Admiral's Beach, St. Mary's Bay,
who were instrumental in bringing this great show to St. Catherine's Academy
on Saturday night.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two individuals in
the riding of Torngat Mountains for winning the Volunteer of the Year Award.
Martha Winters from Hopedale has spent many hours working on womens' issues
and was instrumental in getting the womens' shelter in Hopedale. As well as
organizing other community events, she also serves on the church board of the
Moravian Church in Hopedale.
In Makkovik, John Andersen, has spent many years organizing sports throughout
the community as well as the Makkovik Come Home Year, the annual Trout Festival,
as well as organizing cubs and scouts in his riding.
Mr. Speaker, we are honoured to have such people in these small communities
who give so much of their time where these small communities lack facilities.
These people are very deserving, and today it is a pleasure for me to rise in
this House and congratulate them on winning their awards.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I had the great honour last week to attend the
Golden Wedding Anniversary of a very special couple in the District of Terra
Nova.
Trixie and Martin Collins, my parents, were married fifty years ago, on
December 6, at the Anglican Church in Gambo.
Mr. Speaker, myself and my five younger sisters certainly feel privileged to
have been raised by parents who instilled in us, at an early age, the beliefs
and values we hold dear today, including respect and compassion for others.
A celebration was held at their home on Thursday, attended by a large number
of family and friends who visited throughout the afternoon and evening.
My parents still reside in Gambo, along with their youngest daughter, Trina,
a special sister to myself, Geraldine, Cindy, Debbie and Carolyn.
I, and I am sure all members of this House, join me in wishing them many
happy returns.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Premier. There seems to be some confusion in
the minds of the general public as a result of the behind closed doors
negotiations and, of course, some conflicting statements made by senior members
of government with respect to the outstanding issues on Voisey's Bay.
In his ministerial statement, at the beginning of this session, the Minister
of Mines and Energy said that the two major outstanding issues between
government and Inco involved the movement of concentrate out of the Province.
Would the Premier confirm that these are still the two major outstanding issues?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Mines and Energy is conducting those negotiations on behalf
of the government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not a
matter of being behind closed doors. The Leader of the Opposition would
understand that if anyone is going to make an arrangement with respect to
something as big and important as Voisey's Bay, the discussions have to be
held -and we have indicated to all the people in the Province that when we have
something agreed to we will tell everybody in the Province exactly what it is,
the basis on which it is done and why it is good for Newfoundland and Labrador.
So, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Energy has raised those two points
in the public before.
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.
This Ministerial Statement was given to this House at the opening of this
session, and at that time the Minister of Mines and Energy did, in fact,
indicate that they were the only two major outstanding issues. I would just ask
the Premier again if they are, in fact, still the only two major outstanding
issues?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I have had no new update from the Minister
of Mines and Energy with respect to the issue. Unlike the Leader of the
Opposition, who was trying to suggest to the people of the Province last week,
there is no deal. There has been no deal. There has never been a deal,
unfortunately. We would like to, and I understand that the Opposition would like
to have a deal as well. That is what I have heard from them recently, in any
event.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there continues to be discussions with
respect to that. One of the issues that - I am not sure this week what the
position of the Opposition is, but I do know that Inco is in Ottawa trying to
get some approval for research and development funding, and maybe it would be
might be a good thing to do.
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, I understand from one of the former Premiers
that - I think it was Premier Tobin who indicated that that money would not go
if there wasn't an agreement between Inco and government. I think that is the
position.
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Premier then something that he knows directly
about, because he was quoted in an interview this morning that if the new
hydromet technology does not work there will not be a project unless the company
promises to build a smelter in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the
Premier to confirm if that is, in fact, his position.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I think it is helpful, at times, to make
sure that there is no misunderstanding of what is meant by words that are said.
Mr. Speaker, I have never said that there had to be a smelter in the Province.
What I have said is this: There will be no deal unless a finished nickel product
leaves Newfoundland and Labrador.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the questions can be asked a hundred different ways but
what we have always said is this: We are not trying to tell a company like Inco
what kind of technology to use. All we are telling them is the technology does
not really matter to us as long as the final product that leaves Newfoundland
and Labrador is nickel. We are not trying to suggest to them what the technology
should be. They are interested in trying the hydromet technology - which the
Leader of the Opposition does not want to know - if it will work in Newfoundland
or Labrador or not. As a matter of fact, he is frightened to death to find out.
He does not want to know, Mr. Speaker. We would like to know because it is the
newer technology. It is cleaner. It is more environmentally friendly. It is more
cost-efficient and effective and could probably lead to a longer future in the
Province. He does not want to know if it works or not. We have said we will
gladly find out if it works because if it does, they will build that in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: If it does not work, Mr. Speaker, we have told them they
will have to build something else. We do not care what it is, as long as a
finished nickel product leaves the Province.
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. E. BYRNE: His position has changed again.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that is why there is confusion in the minds of
the public because this morning on CBC there was an interview, and obviously the
Premier has changed his position on that particular issue.
I do want to know about hydromet processing. I would ask the Premier if he
would bring the people of Newfoundland and Labrador up to date on the most
recent information he has on the likely success of hydromet processing on
sulfide ore in this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to see again that the Leader of the Opposition is using the CBC
morning news as his research base. Mr. Speaker, maybe he would also like to talk
about the fact that on the CBC news this morning the Member for The Straits
& White Bay North was talking about the fact that there is not enough money
being spent for job creation and make-work on the Northern Peninsula this year,
when last year at this same time he was accusing the then Premier of the day of
trying to buy votes by spending too much money.
So, Mr. Speaker, is it too much money or not enough money?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: It seems to be the way, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition
operates; they change their statement every day to suit the circumstance. That
is not the way we operate. We know what we are about, we are consistent in what
we do, and in this respect we are consistent in the one thing. We would like to
find out whether or not hydromet is going to work in Newfoundland and Labrador
which, if it is not spent on hydromet research, will be spent on some other
research in Canada. They are frightened to death to find out whether or not it
will work in Newfoundland and Labrador, unlike this government, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you once again, Mr. Premier, for another non-answer.
A lot of the people in this Province actually were quite upset by what they
saw, the story on Melita Fillier from the Northern Peninsula last week, very,
very upset about the failure of your policies in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier if he would confirm if any ore has, in
fact, been already taken from the ovoid and left this Province for testing?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Opposition would
always try to suggest things that are nowhere in the realm of truth or
possibility. There has been no mining going on in Labrador. There is no mining
lease. You cannot extract ore, Mr. Speaker, without a mining lease.
However, Mr. Speaker, if he is confused and trying to suggest that when
people drill, when they do a drilling exploration program and they take the core
samples and test them to see whether or not there is nickel in the actual stuff
or not - that is the only activity that has occurred in Labrador, a drilling
program just like there is a drilling program for every single mining project
everywhere in the world.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know - and I can tell you quite honestly -
whether or not those core samples from the drilling itself for exploration have
actually been tested in Newfoundland and Labrador or elsewhere. I know that the
final core samples and the results are all registered with the Department of
Mines and Energy here in Newfoundland and Labrador because they are the property
of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Leader of the Opposition is not trying to
suggest to the people of the Province that there has been some ore already taken
out of Labrador to be turned into nickel somewhere else. It is impossible
because there is no mining lease and will never be a mining lease if they get
their way because they are frightened to death to let it happen.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Something good might happen in Newfoundland and Labrador.
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, last month at a conference in St. John's Dr.
Chris Fleming of Lakefield Research has indicated that some twenty-eight tons of
ore has been removed from this Province for testing. It must have been some
drill, Premier.
I would ask the Premier if he can confirm, or is he aware, that any of this
ore has been removed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is serious enough that I will check into
it, because the Leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest that a normal
practice under a drilling program - because that is all that has occurred in
Labrador, a testing and drilling program, and there has been no request of any
extraordinary nature with respect to Voisey's Bay. I am quite disappointed,
quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition would now try to
suggest to the people of the Province that a normal bit of testing to prove up
the value of the ore itself so that people can see whether or not it is really
worth investing in, is now going to be described as taking some ore out of the
Province. He should be absolutely, totally, ashamed of himself.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: But I will check it out and get the full details, rather
than leave the innuendo that he would like to put forward as he usually operates
with the people of the Province.
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.
So the Premier of this Province is not aware that some 56,000 pounds of ore
has left this Province; sad.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier: What is the time frame for construction
of a test facility, testing that facility, construction of a full hydromet
processing facility, or a smelter in the event that hydromet processing fails?
What is the time frame, Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, there is something very sad going on in the
Province. It is an Opposition, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition,
being so opposed to something good happening for the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, that he would spread this kind of innuendo. I will get the answer,
because it needs a clear answer for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now
he is back to asking me to speculate about what might be in a deal with Voisey's
Bay and Inco.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry; we do not have a deal that I can tell you the
details of. Our commitment is this: When we reach a deal - I say when because we
hope it is when, not if - that is in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, every single detail will be released to every single person in the
Province who has an interest in what is going to happen with respect to Voisey's
Bay. Until then, Mr. Speaker, I see nothing constructively to be served by
speculating about some -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: - what ifs, about certain components of a deal that may
or may not occur.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear1
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have asked six very, very important questions of clarification to the
Premier for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and he hasn't answered
one of them.
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Premier another question: Since the government
will allow concentrate to leave this Province for processing in Sudbury, while
hydromet processing has been tested, will the Premier tell the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador how much ore or concentrate he is willing to allow to
leave this Province while this testing is going on?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear1
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, actually, I look forward to the day,
hopefully sooner rather than later, when I can tell the people of the Province
exactly what the arrangement is. There is no arrangement today. There is no
arrangement to talk about. Unfortunately, in my view, there is no arrangement to
talk about. When there is one, I will gladly talk about it, Mr. Speaker, because
I believe, I would guess, that the people of the Province would clearly
understand and support the notion that if you have to let some portion leave and
if you know you are going to get it back at the end, and that is going to cause
us to have a full processing plant so that finished nickel leaves the Province,
100 per cent of it by the way that we discussed last week leaves the Provinces
over the life of the project, that the people of the Province were likely to
support that particular proposition. We will gladly put that to everybody when
we have an arrangement; but I will tell, Mr. Speaker, we will not be taking
positions like the Opposition that say in Clarenville that we will demand a
smelter be built, but in St. John's say we will demand a smelter be built only
if it is economically feasible. You will not get two different standards from
us, Mr. Speaker. You will get a clear answer, a straight answer, and the full
details when we have something to disclose to the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Education. The minister, Mr.
Speaker, has been warned for years that the Province is facing a severe teacher
shortage. We have been asking on this side what she plans to do about it. Her
response has been to wait and see, and now we see her plan. It is to bring
retired teachers back into the classroom on full pension and full salary.
Surely, I say to the minister, this must be a stop-gap measure. Does the
minister have any other plan for a longer term solution to the shortage of
teachers?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am assuming that the member opposite agrees with the initiative that we
have taken, because clearly it will take of some issues that we have around the
Province, but I have to say an issue that we have in the country where we have
difficulty finding teachers to cover all specialized areas throughout the
Province. This is one step in a multi-faceted strategy in terms of how to deal
with the situation in which we find ourselves, not only in this Province but in
the country.
The hon. member opposite knows that clearly where we have a shortage of
teachers for teaching speciality areas like French, like special education, like
math, like biology, then clearly we have to take some measures to try and ensure
that our students get a quality education. What we announced this weekend, Mr.
Speaker, will do just that. We have a responsibility to make sure that we have
qualified teachers in the classroom.
We are very proud of all of our teachers, Mr. Speaker, because we have the
highest qualified teaching force in the country, something of which we are very,
very proud.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, there is an issue for us in some pockets of
this Province that we must address, and we are doing just that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, my question referenced a long-term
solution, a long-term plan, and short-term band-aid solutions have a way of
getting, I guess, out of control. This is what may happen in this case.
I ask the minister: Isn't it possible that the minister's solution will
only make the problem worse? Won't new graduates likely be discouraged when
entering the profession if they feel the jobs are being taken up by retired
teachers?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows differently from that,
or he should have, if he read the news this weekend or read our press release.
He knows this is being done on a case-by-case basis. Under no circumstance will
the board be able to hire a retired teacher if there is a qualified graduate
from Memorial waiting to be hired. It is a case-by-case basis. We have been
watching this very closely. Again, let me say, it is part of a multi-faceted
strategy. Even the President of the NLTA has said this is a very positive thing
to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: He said that any time we can put a qualified teacher in the
classroom we should do it, and we are doing just that, Mr. Speaker.
In addition to that, we have put in place an advisory committee on teacher
supply and demand. We are working with all of the stakeholders, the University,
the school boards, the NLTA, the Department of Education, again to make sure
that we never find ourselves in a situation where we have a shortage of
teachers. This is no different than what has happened in this Province for
years, and what is happening in the country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to get real -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. HEDDERSON: - because it reminds me, Minister, of musical chairs.
Why, I ask the minister, wouldn't teachers who are in the classroom now
take early retirement and be hired back, perhaps in another community, at a
significant boost in income? Get real, Minister! Get real!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, anyone would know that the proposition the member
just put forward is ludicrous. Clearly, we are not going to have teachers who
are going to retire in June and go back into a classroom in September. First,
these teachers receive a severance package and they cannot go back in the
classroom and teach until they have used up the value of that severance package.
The member should do some research before he starts to ask questions, or at
least he should know the answers before he asks the questions.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.
Minister, because several doctors have left the Central Newfoundland area in
the past year, hundreds of people are being left without health services.
Minister, can you tell the people of the Grand Falls-Windsor area, and
particularly the surrounding areas of Grand Falls-Windsor, too, when they can
expect to have more family physicians come to our area?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, our boards, of course, are making every effort
at recruitment for physicians across this Province. In addition to that, we have
put in place a central recruitment effort that is taking place between the
department, the board, and the university, to improve our recruitment of new
physicians. Mr. Speaker, this is something that is ongoing. We have improved our
efforts this year by putting in a central recruitment office and I am sure as
soon as the individuals have success in attracting candidates to the individual
areas, they will do so. The plan is in place. The process is there, it has been
improved, and I am sure we will see increasingly positive results from it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister, I read her press release on October 18. That is no
comfort to people in Central Newfoundland when they go to the outpatients at the
hospital - some of them having to drive for an hour to get there - and be turned
away by the outpatients department because they do not have a family doctor. I
say to the minister, something needs to be done and done quickly to make sure
that the people of Central Newfoundland get the services that they deserve.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.
MR. HUNTER: Minister, the doctors in Central Newfoundland are so
overwhelmed with the amount of work they have, and patients, that they have to
turn away five to ten patients a day. Minister, when can we see something done?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I say again that we have improved our
recruitment process. I am sure that we will see increasingly positive results
from it. I also would like to add that I believe, in terms of Central
Newfoundland and in terms of the boards there, that they have in the past had a
fairly good record with recruitment. From my understanding of how that region of
the Province stands with respect to other areas of the Province, they have a
very good recruitment record. It can only be enhanced by the work of our central
recruitment office and I am sure that we will see increasingly positive results.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for
Windsor-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: If it is that
bad in Central Newfoundland, the Grand Falls-Windsor area, does she know how bad
it is in the rest of rural Newfoundland where people cannot see a doctor? Does
she know that?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, yes, the recruitment of physicians is a very
serious issue. It is something that we have paid particular attention to, to the
point of trying to maximize our own retention of our medical students here by
centralizing our efforts through the university. We also know that there areas
of the Province where it is more difficult to attract physicians, whether they
are fee-for-service or salaried positions. We are well aware of it. We are
working hard with the boards to try and improve the outcomes there. The boards
are doing their best, as well, to try and ensure that there are sufficient
physicians within the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, in terms of how we actually stand, you also need
to keep in mind that if you look at the stats for the rest of the country,
across Canada as a whole, as the Centre for Health Information showed -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer quickly.
MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, just this last point: The average across
the country is ninety four physicians per 100,000 of population, and here in
Newfoundland we have 106 per 100,000.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary
Education.
A study released on Friday by Statistics Canada showed that young people from
low income families are two-and-a-half times less likely to attain a university
education. In this Province, the student aid system itself is a major barrier to
attending university, where government forces single mothers on social
assistance to borrow the maximum student loan and then claws back the shelter
component about $2,600 a year, adding $10,000 to $13,000 to these students cost
of a university education. Will the government reverse this policy, thereby
removing at least one barrier for these low income students to attend
university?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary
Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
At the moment we are doing a student aid review that I think most members are
aware of, and most members are also aware that we probably have the best Loan
Remission Program in all of Canada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Needy students who have to borrow at maximum levels, right now,
as they finish and meet the criteria which mostly involves finishing in a timely
fashion, Mr. Speaker, it mostly means that most of the provincial portion of
their student debt is written off.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister should know that most single mothers on social assistance do not
meet the criteria because they cannot do their university education in the time
that the minister has allotted. Given, Mr. Speaker, that these financial
barriers are actually creating a situation, as shown by Statistics Canada, that
low income people cannot get to university and cannot continue university, will
the minister not use this money that is being spent now on student loan
remission, on loans interest, the Millennium Scholarship Program, and turn it
into a grants program like we had before 1993, so that low income people can
attend university without the fear of facing a huge debt coming out the other
end? Will the minister not do that?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth and Post-Secondary Education.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just points out exactly why we are
doing a student aid review, why we need to be looking at in particular students
who have to come from rural areas, and it costs them quite a bit more. It is not
the cost of tuition that is causing all of the high student debt in this
Province. It is the cost of leaving your home and moving into your point of
education, whether it is at a private college, a public college, or the
university. That is exactly why our loan remission system, in fact, works better
most of the time than the grant systems that are in place in many other
provinces. Right now, if you look at the millions of dollars that we are putting
into loan remission each year, it is put in for the neediest students in this
Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
Mr. Speaker, in her discussion document Reaching Consensus and Planning
Ahead, the minister outlined some of the principles that would guide future
House today about her plans to implement standards for the operation of
ambulance services in this Province to make sure that, regardless of where you
live in rural Newfoundland, the ambulance service you get will be adequately
staffed by capable, competent well-trained people?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As we move forward with developing a strategic health plan for this Province
there will be few key pieces to that. We talked about these at the provincial
forum. We talked about the issue of wellness. We talked about primary care and
secondary care, and, yes, tertiary care would be the fourth. A piece of all of
this has to be how we provide ambulance care so that we can move people to where
the services are.
So, Mr. Speaker, as we continue to develop our strategic health plan, how we
deliver ambulance services will come under review and it will require intensive
deliberation. But, at this point, we are working on the current plan which was
fully developed and put in place five years ago and again, most recently, in the
last two years when we enhanced our subsidies for ambulance services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am providing an answer to a question put
on the Order Paper on November 21 with respect to: "A detailed breakdown of
the cost of producing, publishing and distributing the document and
advertisements highlighting the Premier's first 100 days in office." I am
glad to provide the information. I would also point out that the information was
requested once before already by the Opposition under Freedom of Information on
July 12, from the Member for St. John's Centre and it has already been
provided, but I will gladly provide it again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER: St. John's East.
PREMIER GRIMES: St. John's East.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question asked by the member for -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. Minister.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question that was asked by the
Member for Kilbride: "To ask the Honourable the Minister of Industry, Trade
and Rural Development to lay upon the Table of the House the following
information:
a) A list of all companies that have received EDGE status since the
program's inception, detailing the number and duration of all jobs created as
a consequence of the granting of EDGE status, and indicating the current
operational status of each company."
Let me just summarize by saying to him, Mr. Speaker, that there are a total
of 115 companies that applied for EDGE designation; forty-three of those have
had their EDGE designation revoked; seventy-two companies have EDGE designation:
thirty-three from the Northeast Avalon; thirty-nine outside the Northeast
Avalon; sixty-two startups; ten expansions; twenty outside companies and
investors. Mr. Speaker, the total cost to the Province has been $5.1 million,
and there has been over $200 million invested, as a result of that, and has
created over 1,600 jobs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House this
afternoon a response to a question which was tabled by my colleague, the Member
for Waterford Valley, on the issue of the consultation which was conducted on
drafting the legislation for the Child and Youth Advocate.
PREMIER GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, just for clarification. I had indicated, in error,
that the Freedom of Information request from the Opposition was from the Member
for St. John's Centre, which is not the case, she is one of our members. It
was from the Member for St. John's East, Mr. Speaker, and the point being,
that they put a question on the Order Paper that they already had the answer to
in writing some three months ago.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
Petitions. Orders of the Day.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Order 26, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: I know there were some members on our side who must have
missed when you called Petitions, Mr. Speaker, and I wonder if it would be okay
with the Government House Leader if we could revert on the Order Paper to the
section under petitions to allow several members who have petitions from their
constituencies or people to bring forward. If that would be okay?
MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed?
Agreed.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition today which reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Legislative
Session convened, the Petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador;
WHEREAS onshore developments and infrastructure with respect to the fishing
industry in the District of St. Barbe has deteriorated to the point where it is
unsafe to both the fishers who use it and the equipment it is supposed to
protect; and
WHEREAS the deterioration of the above mentioned infrastructure has
significantly deterred economic growth in communities who so desperately need
it;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to begin investing in infrastructure improvements in the District of St. Barbe,
which, in turn, will lead to economic remuneration in a region that is in dire
need of such benefits, as in duty bound your petitioners will every pray.
Whereas the centre of activity has always been around the wharves in our
communities, and that is where we placed our fish plants. They go hand in hand.
I think that it is a must if you are going to have economic growth in areas that
depend on the fishery, like in many parts of rural Newfoundland.
We have seen cases where we have lost opportunities to process fish. There
was a situation where we had crab that had gone to the Province of Quebec
because they were not able to land at a wharf that was next to the fish plant.
It had to be trucked there and it just was not acceptable to be able to make
that deal go through. Those are the results of not having wharves and fish
plants together, as was the original intent. It has left many of our communities
disjointed with an opportunity for them to get the economic opportunities that
are out there.
Also, many times the onshore fishermen who needed to get close to the
resource, such as the lobster fishermen had places that were dredged and could
protect their boats when they are away from the fishing grounds. Those have gone
into deterioration and it is a continuous struggle for those people to get a
small bit of dredging. There is never any plan they will take and make it more
secure for the future. It is always just enough for the season to get by, and
that attitude has been there for quite some time. I think these people would
like to see a government that has a plan for the future and willing to see that
what they contribute to the -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. YOUNG: I am talking about some dredging here.
Dredging would have made it more viable for these people to continue on with
their fishing enterprises.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition. The petition reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative
session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;
WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since
it was paved approximately twenty-five years ago; and
WHEREAS this
section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that
vehicles are being damaged, including school buses serving schools in the area,
and school children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;
WHEREFORE your petitions urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
upgrade and pave the approximately four kilometers of Route 235 from Birchy Cove
to Bonavista, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is a petition, once again, from the residents who live, not
only in Birchy Cove, Newmans Cove, Middle, Upper and Lower Amherst Cove, but
also from people from the Bonavista and King's Cove area as well; people who
use this
section of road on a continuous basis. It is one of the main highways
leading into Bonavista where people have to access schools, school children;
where people have to go to access hospitals and health care. It is a situation
where this particular
section of Route 235 has been promised by the present
minister to have been completed this year. At the end of the construction season
it was proven that instead of upgrading and paving 5 kilometers, the minister
saw fit to upgrade and pave 1.9 kilometers.
The residents of those communities have gone forward. They did not go out and
block the roads; they have been responsible people. In fact, just last year they
went out and stood by the side of the road handing out leaflets to people who
passed by and asked for their support in order to get this road upgraded and
repaired. They did not want to stop school buses. They did not want to stop
business people from carrying out their daily activities. They were responsible
enough just to stay by the side of the road in order to bring the seriousness of
this particular road to the minister's and government's attention.
I certainly support the people in having this
section of road upgraded and
paved. It is certainly in a deteriorated condition right now. Many times when
driving down the road you don't know if you are out on the shoulder of the
road or driving down the part that is suppose to be paved. It is certainly a big
concern. It is an area of Route 235, like I said, that is travelled all over by
most of the people from King's Cove to Bonavista where people have to access
work; where people have to go and attend to their daily duties.
I ask the minister if he would include this
section of road when he looks at
putting forward his budget for the next construction year to make sure that this
particular
section of road is upgraded and paved to bring it to modern-day
conditions.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition today from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The
prayer of the petition reads:
We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of
Assembly with copies to the House of Commons to oppose the bulk export of water
from this Province.
Every major resource, such as Churchill Falls, that has been developed in
Newfoundland and Labrador, has resulted in the majority of benefits going
outside the Province. It is time that we demand our full and fair share.
With water being one of the few resources remaining where we have the
opportunity to deliver maximum benefits through jobs, spinoff from secondary
processing, as well as royalties, we demand that any water sold must be bottled
and processed in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, the signatures of this petition today are from Topsail, Baie
Verte and some from St. John's as well. We put these with the numbers of other
petitions that have been presented so far to the House of Assembly on this
particular issue. We fully support the people who have signed this petition; it
is an important issue. They are demanding that the Government of this Province
listen to the people who own the resource. The people who own this resource are
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The people of this Province, the owners
of this resource, are demanding that we process this resource in a fashion that
will give full benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; that we
manage this resource in a way that will see jobs right here in Newfoundland and
Labrador. The guarantee that the people who own this resource are the people who
benefit from the resource in terms of jobs, processing, secondary spinoff and so
on and so on.
We have seen many other resources where the raw resources left this Province
to be processed elsewhere. The people of this Province want an end put to that
type of practice. They want to ensure that our resources, where at all possible,
are processed in this Province, to make sure that this Province gets out of the
hole that we are in; to make sure that this Province and the people of this
Province start to get the benefit from our resources so that we can become a
have Province so that we no longer have to go to Ottawa with hat in hand.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: The people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, do not want to
be begging Ottawa for transfer payments. They want to chart their own destiny.
The only way we can do that is by managing our resources in the way they should
be managed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 26, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards
Act." (Bill 54)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am delighted to stand in this House today and introduce Bill 54. Bill 54 is
the amendments to the Labour Standards Act.
Mr. Speaker, last February, when our new Premier, Premier Grimes, created a
new Department of Labour, it marked the beginning of a new era in labour
relations in our Province. Since then, we have been working very hard with
business and labour in a collaborative approach to dealing with the labour
issues. One of the key areas for change in which we are able to demonstrate
progress today is in labour standards legislation. I have to say, Mr. Speaker,
that this is the biggest overhaul in labour standards in almost thirty years.
The Labour Standards Act and regulations establish minimum conditions and
basic terms of employment in our Province, including minimum wage, hours of work
and overtime rates of pay. The legislation applies to the majority of our
Province's workplaces; however, the provisions primarily affect non-union
workplaces. Non-union workplaces in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,
Mr. Speaker, are approximately 60 per cent of our workforce.
Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the act that I am introducing today will bring
about significant improvements to the Province's labour standards and will
have positive impacts on both workers and employers. In February, 2000, my
colleague, the former Minister of Environment and Labour, appointed a Labour
Standards Board to review the Labour Standards Act. The board, which was
comprised of an employee and employer representative and a neutral chairperson
reviewed the existing legislation and sought input on labour standards issues by
conducting public meetings throughout our Province.
In June, 2000, the board submitted its report. My department has consulted
with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, the Newfoundland and
Labrador Employers' Council, and nineteen other business and labour
organizations on the recommendations in the board's report.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise that the package of amendments I am
tabling this afternoon has the support of this Province's business and labour
community. This support is central to government's decision to bring about
these changes. The amendments ensure that the Labour Standard Act is progressive
and continues to provide protection for workers and a level playing field for
employers.
Mr. Speaker, I am about to outline some of the key highlights of the new
Labour Standards Act. The first one I will talk about is an additional paid
public holiday. In 2002, the number of paid public holidays will increase from
five to six days. I am pleased to say here today, Mr. Speaker, that the sixth
paid public holiday will be Remembrance Day. That will give workers an
additional paid day off every year. Three other provinces throughout Canada have
declared Remembrance Day a paid public holiday. This change, Mr. Speaker, will
place Newfoundland and Labrador among the country's leaders in recognizing the
historical significance and ongoing importance of Remembrance Day. I think all
of us here in this House today, and I think people all across our Province,
would be pleased when we look at the men and women who are serving our country
and remembering those who served for us. Remembrance Day is a very important day
in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am pleased to announce that will be
recognized next year as a paid public holiday.
Legislation regarding overtime pay is also being amended and will require
employers to pay overtime pay at one and one-half times the regular rate of pay.
The current legislation, Mr. Speaker, allows employers to pay overtime at one
and one-half times the minimum wage. So, this will be changed in this new Labour
Standards Act.
Several of the changes will improve flexibility in the workplace and
accommodate family responsibilities, as all workers are challenged by the need
to balance work and family responsibilities. The legislation that I am
introducing today, introduces a new approach to the obligation of employers and
employees to provide notice of termination of an employment relationship. The
period of notice will be required to be increased as the years of employment in
the relationship increases. I wanted to say to you - getting back to the
flexibility in the workplace for family responsibilities - this new act will
increase the unpaid holidays from five to seven. Workers can now take up to
seven days a year unpaid leave for either family or responsibility days.
The notice of determination period, what that means is that the longer you
work in an establishment, both employees and employers must give each other
notice if either the employee or the employer wants to terminate the
relationship.
Amendments to the Labour Standards Act will also increase protection for
employees wages. Firstly, in the event of business insolvency, the current
maximum of $2,000 for employee wage protection among creditors will increase to
a maximum of $7,500. Secondly, and more significantly, company directors will
become personally liable for wages that are earned by employees and remain
unpaid at the time of a business insolvency. A maximum liability of two months
unpaid wages per employee will apply. This liability will not apply where
company directors can demonstrate that they have exercised due diligence in
their duties as directors.
Mr. Speaker, the new legislation I am introducing is progressive and keeps
pace with legislative developments across the country. While I am bringing these
amendments to the House of Assembly on behalf of government, I want to emphasize
the important contribution business and labour organizations have made towards
modernizing this labour legislation to provide an improved and more flexible
labour climate.
I want to especially thank the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador
Federation of Labour, Ms Elaine Price, and the President of the Newfoundland and
Labrador Employers' Council, Ms Marilyn Tucker, for the leadership which they
have demonstrated in advancing the package of changes.
Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth issue that we have addressed business,
government and labour this spring. Firstly, we have made changes to the Labour
Relations Act, the Workers' Compensation Ac, we have had an agreement working
on a training initiative for both employers and employees and now, fourthly, new
changes to the Labour Standards Act. What that says is that business, government
and labour are working closely to improve labour relations in this Province, and
this is a very important aspect of it.
I am also pleased to announce today that the Department of Labour will,
commencing next year in 2002, consult annually with business and labour leaders
on labour standards matters. That will be done on an annual basis, Mr. Speaker.
I am confident that this new legislation will bring about significant
improvements to the Province's labour standards. These amendments will provide
additional flexibility which will be of benefit to both workers and employers.
Improved and flexible working conditions contribute to a greater morale and
improved productivity. This is a key ingredient to building a strong and stable
workforce which is so vital to the continued economic growth of this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like, this afternoon, to make a few comments on the Labour Standards
bill. It is very interesting to note, when the minister was up speaking, she
said how much this legislation was needed. Mr. Speaker, I really could not agree
with her more. This legislation is needed, and as I get into my remarks this
afternoon I will tell you why, in this hon. member's opinion, this legislation
is needed.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 54 brings the Labour Standards Act into the Twenty-First
Century. I support this bill, and of course throughout the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador this bill will be broadly supported because it is fair
legislation and it is legislation that is long overdue. It is essentially
important to have this legislation at this time in our history. More and more
people employed in this Province belong to the working poor. They work for very
low wages and in fact, they don't have any job security and absolutely nobody
to represent them in the workplace. There is nobody in the position to defend
them but at least now we have the Labour Standard Act which will be quite
capable to defend the unfortunate people in our Province who don't have
anybody to represent them. I am pleased that this act clearly defines the
benefits that are entitled to workers in the workplace and the responsibility on
the employer to make sure employees, the working poor, receive the employment
benefits that they are so much entitled to. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, there
is a greater need for this legislation now than ever before in the history of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, a few interesting points; most of the new jobs created in this
Province are minimum wage jobs or they are very low paying jobs. Most of them
are temporary jobs, part-time jobs or make-work jobs with little or no security.
Many individuals in this Province who, a few years ago, had a full time job at a
decent wage, a steady pay cheque, paid holidays and paid vacations so that they
could spend time with their families, no longer have these jobs. They now have
to support themselves and their families through temporary employment, piecework
and very low incomes. They feel humiliated and have lost their sense of economic
dignity.
Mr. Speaker, if you cannot give these people a decent job, a decent pay, at
least give them back some dignity. Do something to make sure they get a
vacation. That they are given notice before they are pushed back on the
unemployment roles and make sure that employers just cannot pack up and leave
this Province without paying the employees the money to which they are so
rightly entitled, the money which they have earned. Now, Mr. Speaker, this act
tries to do this.
As I said earlier, I fully support this legislation as help towards the
working poor in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I would
love to be able to stand here today and say that this legislation is
unnecessary. I would love to be able to say that more working Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians have full time jobs and earn living wage; that they can all
afford to take vacations with their families; that they could all enjoy a turkey
dinner this Christmas and have presents for their children under their Christmas
trees; but, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot say this because I know that the
facts in this instance are very different. Far to many of the growing numbers of
the working poor in this Province will have to depend on food banks for their
Christmas dinner or eat the humble fare that they can afford. The gifts given to
their children this year will come from the Salvation Army or other sources such
as the VOCM Happy Tree or other charities throughout our Province, or from
compassionate neighbours or else they will do without. At this time of year I
believe that there should be nobody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
who has to do without.
Mr. Speaker, I spent some time years ago as a member of an organization that,
at this time of the year, was a very active organization and were giving out
Christmas hampers. Also, in those hampers was not only food but gifts for
children. For somebody to go door-to-door two or three days before Christmas
when the children were in bed and leave these parcels at people's homes, I
tell you what, Mr. Speaker, it gives you a much greater appreciation for
Christmas. It should give you a much greater appreciation for the things that
you have and it certainly should do your heart good to know that when you go to
bed at night you have helped somebody who is less fortunate than you are, and
know you have been able to make their Christmas just that much better for them,
their wives and their families. As I said earlier, where the gifts come from,
where the food comes from, that is the unvarnished truth.
Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation because it will restore some respect
to the growing numbers of the working poor in this Province. I fear it is the
only help that they are going to get from this government, because as I have
said earlier, there is no more high-paying jobs. We are dealing with low-paying
jobs. I say to the minister and to the people who devised this act, the people
who put their time into it: Congratulations, because this act helps the working
poor in our Province, helps the people who no longer have employment and, as I
said earlier, who have to depend on food banks and other charities, throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador, to live. Mr. Speaker, if there is anybody in this
House who does not believe that we have these kinds of people living in our own
Province, or people who do not need help at this very serious time of year, then
somebody really needs a reality check, because this information is available.
When we look at the number of gifts that the Salvation Army give out at
Christmas - and the gifts go from St. John's all across this Province of ours
- and the work and the effort that VOCM puts into this; especially the work of
the Salvation Army.
I had an incident several years ago, on Christmas Eve, where I received a
call from a lady who had no milk or sugar in her house. I was very fortunate,
Mr. Speaker, because I knew the Salvation Army Captain in the area where I
lived. I called the man up and in a second the gentleman said to me: Bob, I have
a hamper here to the value of $100. You are more than welcome to it. You can
call this lady up and tell her that this is here; and any time she wishes it, we
are only too glad to give it to her. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that when I
called the lady back she said: Bob, thanks but no thanks; before the day was out
I was able to go to some neighbours of mine and come up with some milk and
sugar. So I really and truly don't need a hamper, and I do have a turkey for
tomorrow for dinner. I said: Well thank goodness for that. She said: Bob, I have
a greater problem now. I said: Well, what is that? Maybe I can help you with
that. She said: Bob, I have absolutely nothing for my daughter for Christmas. I
have absolutely nothing to wrap up and lay under the Christmas tree for Mary -
or Susan or whatever her name was. When she comes down the stairs tomorrow
morning there will be absolutely nothing under the tree for her. Mr. Speaker, I
have somebody who works with me as well, who said: Bob, I will look after her
daughter. He went out that afternoon and bought their daughter a pair of jeans,
took them home, and the lady came to my house later on that afternoon and picked
them up. So you can imagine the joy that we put into that house for Christmas.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, was needed. It was badly needed because, as I said
earlier, it was needed to help the working poor of Newfoundland and Labrador. I
want to congratulate the people who took the time to sit and go through the
legislation and come up with recommendations whereby we would help the working
poor of our Province; whereby we would help the poor in our Province be able to
make a decent living.
I also say to the minister: I would certainly agree with Remembrance Day
being a provincial holiday. As a matter of fact, for years I have been very
surprised that Remembrance Day wasn't a holiday, because I say to the
minister: Look what we are remembering. Look at the people we are remembering.
How many of us go through Remembrance Day - and go to various parades and have
had the opportunity to talk to some veterans who have taken
part in some of the
great wars throughout this world - and sit and listen to these people? So I
think it is only right and fitting that we should have a provincial holiday in
this Province which we would name in honour of the working people of this
Province, and that holiday would be Remembrance Day.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I support the bill. I support the bill
because it is a bill that is needed to help the working poor of our Province. It
is a bill that is needed to help those who, through no fault of their own,
cannot find employment; and goodness knows, throughout our Province at this time
of year we have lots of them. Make-work projects are not the answer because, as
we have heard in recent days through the press and through some of our own
colleagues on both sides of the House, there are areas in this Province where
the make-work projects are not working. When we see a number of people looking
for work and we can only apply maybe less than one third of that, then we can
say in all honesty, because we are creating make-work projects, we are not
creating work to help the people in this Province. We all heard the horror
stories last year of a lady up to her knees in snow trying to warm up a can of
beans. I mean, Mr. Speaker, that's true; that's very true.
Again, as I said, I support this particular piece of legislation. It is a
bill that was badly needed. It has been needed for some time. As I said earlier,
I congratulate the people who took the time and the effort to sit down and get
into this particular piece of legislation. On that note I will sit down, and
thank you for your time.
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.
I am pleased to rise today, as the Minister of Justice, to support the
amendments to the Labour Standards Act and regulations presented by my hon.
colleague, the Minister of Labour.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour has introduced a bill that this Province
can be truly proud of, because it goes further to balance employees and
employers interests in the workplace.
This progress is possible because of the collaboration of employer and
employee advocates during the Department of Labour's review of the labour
standards regulations and legislation. I want to congratulate the business and
labour on this significant achievement. I specifically want to congratulate the
minister and the employer and employee representatives on offering amendments
that will increase employees' wage protection.
The first change increases wage protection in the event of business
insolvency. Currently, employees have first priority among creditors to a
maximum of $2,000. This change will increase the level of protection to a
maximum of $7,500, bringing Newfoundland and Labrador inline with the majority
of the other provinces.
Secondly, this bill introduces directors liability for unpaid wages. If an
incorporated business should become insolvent, Mr. Speaker, the directors of
that business will be liable for up to two months of unpaid wages for each
employee affected by the closure. However, directors will have a measure of
protection if they can demonstrate that they have exercised due diligence in the
exercise of their duties as directors. In other words, if a director can
demonstrate that he or she has exercised care and diligence to ensure that wages
owing to affected employees are paid, he or she will not be liable for unpaid
wages.
In addition, amendments to the act will increase the time period for which an
employee can recover unpaid wages. Under current legislation, employees can only
recover unpaid wages that are owed in the six months prior to their making a
complaint under the Labour Standards Act. The new act will allow an employee to
request an investigation for unpaid wages for up to two years prior to the date
of their complaint. These changes bring Newfoundland and Labrador inline with
the country's leaders on this issue in an effort to protect employees from the
pain associated with lost wages when businesses close. These changes exemplify
this government's general commitment to wage protection.
On this issue, I am also proud to note that in Newfoundland and Labrador we
currently lead a national initiative to improve on protection granted to
employee's wages in business bankruptcies. Working with all other provinces,
we are seeking an amendment to the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act in
order to improve upon the low priority of employee's wages among unsecured
creditors.
I would like to congratulate the Minister of Labour on this comprehensive and
progressive piece of legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in my place today to say a few words on Bill 54,
An Act To Amend The
Labour Standards Act. Generally speaking, I think this is a positive piece of
legislation. We will be supporting it on this side of the House, I do believe. I
know I will be.
The Minister of Labour, when she was up, spoke on a number of issues with
respect to this piece of legislation, Bill 54. The first thing she hit on, of
course, was the overtime rates paid out to people. She said now that basically
it would go from one and one-half times the minimum wage to one and one-half
times the hourly salary being paid to individuals. Of course, that is a good
thing because in this Province we have many, many people who are what we would
refer to as the working poor. Sometimes in my district I speak to people who
make a very low salary and, I have to say, I wonder how they make a go of it.
People on social assistance have a very difficult time. Sometimes they can get a
drug card or in special situations get special assistance with respect to rent
and what have you, but the people - the working poor - making $6, $7 or $8 an
hour, I think this piece of legislation does go a certain distance to help those
individuals.
The Minister of Labour said that the non-union people, the workforce in this
Province, make up 60 per cent of the workforce. That is a lot of people in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Fifty per cent? She said 60 per cent, but the Member for
Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi says it is 50 per cent.
The job security for these people needs to be looked at, and this legislation
is doing that somewhat, not to a great extent. Many of these people, too, have
part-time positions or temporary positions, Mr. Speaker. You would notice, too,
of later years, that this very government has been hiring people on contract and
it does not give individuals a lot of protection.
I remember the Minister of Finance, not long ago, saying that there would be
no layoffs this fall, because of the cutbacks and what have you, with the civil
service. I often wondered, since she said that, what about the people who are on
contact? Will those contracts be renewed? Some people in the civil service have
their contracts renewed for two years, three years, five years and ten years. I
am just wondering, will any of those people, down the road, be laid off? Not
laid off really, just that their contracts will not be renewed; so they would
not really fit into the specs, or the numbers that the government would put out
in labour later on.
The minister also said, when she was up, that this piece of legislation is
coming forward after a lot of consultation with the employers and employees
across the Province. She had a review committee put in place. Of course, that is
always a good thing with respect to a review if, in fact, the recommendations of
the groups who made the presentations are followed. It seems to me, in this
situation, they are being followed. That, of course, is a good thing.
Also, the minister says now that we will have six paid holidays instead of
five, and Remembrance Day will now be a paid holiday. When you look at this you
try to balance it out, I suppose, when you do something like this with respect
to the employer and the employee.
Before I got into politics, I had a small business operation. I used to hire
thirty or forty people in the summertime, and six or seven over the winter
months. There are a lot of expenses involved in small business in this Province,
from the taxes we have. We have the income tax, we have workers' compensation,
EI, and all our contributions go into that. It is a major factor and the bottom
line for the small businesses.
A few years ago this Administration brought in the payroll tax. At that time
I was very strongly opposed to that. I think, at the time, the payroll tax was
$500,000 for a payroll. If someone, a small business, had a payroll of $500,000
they paid a tax on it, a tax on a job. Then this government reduced that from
$500,000 to $300,000 which made it even worse. There were businesses in this
Province that would not hire if their salary, or their payout, or their payroll,
was going to be over $300,000. In actual fact, it was a tax on jobs. That is
something that this government now is looking at with respect to the payroll
tax. Maybe in due course they will eventually eliminate a problem that they
created, in my mind.
Another thing that the Minister of Labour mentioned when she was on her feet
introducing this piece of legislation was the notice of termination of
employment. That goes both ways, of course, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
employee giving notification of their termination of employment and we have the
employer giving notice of termination of employment. Now it is going to be
related to the amount of time an individual or employee works with a given
company. Again that is a good thing, I think. Most people would agree with that.
Obviously, that came out of the consultation that this government had with the
employers and the employees and the various organizations - I think it was
something like sixteen organizations that the minister referred to when she was
up, fourteen plus two - that they had consulted with, and obviously that came
out of that. Again, a good thing. We know, as we sit here on this side of the
House, this is a progressive piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.
Another very key thing here, of course, in this legislation, is the
protection of the wages of individuals if a company goes out of business. In the
past, of course, when a company went out of business, there was very little
protection there with respect to the amount of money that the employees could go
after. Not only the amount, but the time has been changed; another positive step
in this piece of legislation.
I see the Deputy Premier listening to me very intently. Maybe he would want
to get up, as did the Minister of Justice, and say a few words on this piece of
legislation and let us know how he feels about it. Obviously he would be
supporting it - I would not question that - I would imagine, I say to the Deputy
Premier. I am glad to see that he is paying attention very attentively.
The Minister of Justice, when he was on his feet, Mr. Speaker, talked about a
balance between the employees' and the employers' interest. In the past, if
you would listen to the reasoning and the logic behind this piece of
legislation, of course, people would seem to think the employer had the
advantage. This is trying to balance out somewhat, from the employees'
perspective, what they should expect in the future with respect to the
legislation. Again, we support that here.
I am not going to take much more time on this piece of legislation. I am sure
there are members on the other side of the House who want to get up and speak.
The claim that an individual or an employee can put to a company with respect to
going up six months to two years, the time frame, that if a company goes out of
business from six months to two years, it is a fairly long period of time. There
is no doubt about that, especially in light of the fact that some of the smaller
businesses in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador have a very difficult
time surviving in the Province with, as I said earlier, the different taxes they
have to pay, and the economy itself, Mr. Speaker, especially in rural
Newfoundland. In rural Newfoundland we have now - we saw an example of it, I
suppose, with the EDGE legislation that is coming here before the House of
Assembly, Mr. Speaker, with respect to Zone 19 and what can happen outside Zone
19 in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, what can actually happen out
there versus the Northeast Avalon and the Avalon Peninsula. The economy in this
area is fairly good and the chances of a company surviving in that economy on
the Northeast Avalon is pretty good, I would think. New companies starting up in
rural Newfoundland, companies that have been in business for years in rural
Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, have had difficult times and I think that anybody
would agree to that. Members on the opposite side would agree to that. The EDGE
legislation is good and is bad, depending on the situation and your perspective.
A new company starting up in Newfoundland, where there is going to be some
investment, you have a lot of tax breaks from the government, you have land
given to them from the government, Crown land and what have you. A company that
has been in business for years and years and years is really not getting the
same benefits with respect to the EDGE legislation, Mr. Speaker.
Those are a few of the comments I want to make on this legislation. I am
sure, as time goes forth, on the many bills that are before this House - there
are some I think, over thirty, thirty-five or thirty-six pieces of legislation
before this House. Some were only introduced on Friday. The House is scheduled
to close on December 13, I do believe, or early next week. Now we have some, I
do not know, twenty pieces of legislation left to deal with. Some twenty pieces
of legislation yet to deal with, three or four days to do it, probably eight or
nine hours, and I will personally have some concerns with respect to the
legislation. I have one in particular that I have some major concerns with. It
is Bill 25, an amendment to the Public Tender Act, and I will take my time and
make the points on that one.
With respect to this piece of legislation, I have to compliment the minister
on this piece of legislation, bringing it before the House, and the process they
took to consult with the employers and the employees across this Province.
Hopefully it will produce what the minister says it will produce with respect to
the protection of the employees and the employers in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
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: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to
support the amendments to Bill 54, the Labour Standards Act, which was tabled by
my colleague, the Minister of Labour. In particular, I want to speak to how
these amendments will be more accommodating to family responsibilities within
the workforce.
In the last quarter of a century we have seen dramatic increases in women's
participation in the labour force, population aging, and increases in
single-parent families. The constant restructuring of the labour force has been
a contributing factor to employee stress, and growing conflicts between the
demands of the job and the demands of home and family.
Although change has always been with us, seldom has it occurred from so many
directions and at such a rapid pace as we presently experience. Against this
backdrop, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the worker's ability to
properly balance the competing demands of work and home life is being recognized
as an essential ingredient to both economic and social well-being. Failure to
find a proper balance takes its toll in many ways, not only in our personal
lives but also in the workplace in the form of reduced performance, morale and
productivity.
The implications of work-family conflict have caught the attention of
employers who are increasingly looking for ways to support their employees in
order to maintain competitive and responsive to their own ever-changing
operating environments. In addition, Mr. Speaker, work-family balance is also on
the public policy agenda. As governments recognize this cost in terms of the
well-being of individuals and the well-being of families, the stress-related
health problems and productivity losses, we are gradually seeing a change come
about, especially in terms of the public policy agenda.
Integrating work and family responsibilities has been the subject of both
federal, provincial and territorial policy planning, and several task forces, as
reiterated its commitment to children and families, and committed to making
federally-regulated workplaces more family friendly. The federal government,
however, has only limited jurisdiction over Canadian workplaces so substantial
progress in this area of public policy certainly rests with the provinces and
the territories which retain jurisdiction over the vast majority of workplaces
through their labour standards legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the proactive amendments introduced by my colleague today
demonstrate the commitment of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
make further progress in establishing the appropriate balance between work and
family. The amendments which will provide the ability to take time off in lieu
of payment for overtime and increased access to bereavement leave are beneficial
to employers and employees in terms of fostering a more positive and productive
relationship.
The introduction of family leave to labour standards legislation certainly
ensures that a worker can attend to the immediate needs of a sick child, of
their spouse or of a parent, without the fear of losing their job. That is
important, Mr. Speaker, because quite often those insecurities within the
workplace, that are carried by an employee, certainly do affect the calibre of
the work that they do, and it affects the morale, no doubt about that. Being
able to make those particular policy changes allows them to have a good sense of
security within their workplace and to also feel they can certainly attend to
the priorities that are within their own lives, especially when it comes to
their children and their aging parents.
Mr. Speaker, much remains to be done by both individuals, business, labour
and governments, to facilitate the healthy integration of work and family roles.
The commitment demonstrated by these amendments which were reached by consensus
with key business and labour leaders signals a growing recognition that
identifying ways to balance our work with our family and personal
responsibilities is of interest and is of benefit to all of us.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to commend the Minister of Labour for the
work that she has done in making the amendments to the Labour Standards Act, and
certainly for the facilitation of the input that she has received from both
labour and the represented employee groups, and to ask that all members support
the amendments that are put forward today.
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 would like to rise in support of the changes made to the Labour Standards
Act, and I want to start off first by saying to the minister that I agree
completely and applaud the effort that made the separate department that governs
labour in the Province. I think that the Department of Labour, Mr. Speaker, that
represents all working people in this Province, should have a stand-alone
department that is responsible for the duties and the conditions that apply, and
the legislation that pertains to workers. I also say that the co-operative
approach that was taken in this case to arrive at the changes that we have
before us today is certainly a lesson that other areas can draw from in the
sense that when people are doing things co-operatively you finally get a better
result than if people are pulling in different directions.
In order to fully appreciate the changes that are made to this act, I think,
to fully appreciate that, one would have had to work in this system for a while
to experience the difficulties that you run into when you are trying to assist
workers who have been treated unfairly. I have, in my time, Mr. Speaker,
interceded on behalf of literally hundreds of workers from time to time over the
past twenty-five years in dealing with things that, I say to the minister, I am
glad to see have changed in this current legislative change before the House;
for example, Mr. Speaker, the clause that would require an employer to reimburse
an employee for reasonable expenses incurred by the employee that are otherwise
irrecoverable. That goes to the question of a person's vacation, Mr. Speaker,
and I have run into this on a few occasions. A person, a worker, has a vacation
already scheduled, they have plans made with their family to go to another
destination for vacation purposes and, during the last week or a couple days
prior to it, the employer tells them: I am sorry, you cannot go on your vacation
as planned.
Most times when that situation occurred, Mr. Speaker, it was the employee who
was out of whatever money they may have lost by way of non-refundable tickets,
accommodations that had been paid for in advance, and other such things. I am
glad to see that now the employer, should they decide to change an employee's
vacation schedule, would have to be responsible for picking up any expenses that
the employee made that are not recoverable by the employee.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that Remembrance Day will be made a
public holiday. I am sure that all of the Legions across this Province, and all
of the veterans, will look at this and say, it is about time; and it is, Mr.
Speaker, because without what the Legions and the veterans of this Province
represent we would not have any legislation that applied to working people and
probably not much legislation that would apply to anything else in our society
either. It is very important that we have recognized Remembrance Day as a public
paid holiday and putting Remembrance Day to the forefront in public domain where
it should be.
Clause 8 of the bill extends a right to a weekly day of rest to management
employees. I say to the minister, while that appears to be good, I think it
should be reviewed because if it has not changed in the regulations, or in the
act, the way that it used to read and the way it reads there is that you get one
day off per week. Employees had the right, for a long time, to have one day off
per week. That right, by virtue of these changes, has now been extended to
management employees. But, Mr. Speaker, one of the problems that you run into
with that is: The day off per week can be the first day of one week and the very
last day of the second week. When that happens we have people who are working
for thirteen days straight without a day off. I don't think that is conducive
to any worker in the Province. Working long hours, working long days, accident
frequencies tend to climb - thirteen days on is a long period of time - and that
can happen under this legislation without an employee having a day off.
Also, Mr. Speaker, one of the real good changes that I like, which is put
forward in the House today for second reading, is the fact that overtime - I
understand from the minister, it is not clear in the act, but it is covered
under the regulations - now will be paid at time and a half the regular hourly
rate of pay. Prior to this, it was paid at time and a half - or it could be, not
all employers did this. It would not be fair to suggest that they did. For
example, if the minimum wage was $5.50 and a person was making $10 an hour, then
legally, under the prior legislation, an employer could pay someone time and a
half the minimum wage rather than time and a half $10.50 an hour. I am not
suggesting that all employers did that. I know that they did not, but there have
been many who took advantage of the legislation, as it was prior to these
changes, and paid at time and a half the minimum wage.
"Clause 11 of the Bill would provide for the setting of minimum wage
rates by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council without recourse to the
recommendations of a Labour Standards Board." I think the old system was
more cumbersome and the review was conducted, I think, probably once every five
years, sometimes every couple of years, but now it can be done faster, in a more
expedient way, should the Lieutenant-Governor in Council decide to do so.
One clause that causes me a bit of concern is: "Clause 15 of the Bill
would provide that an employer may pay wages by direct deposit to an employee's
account in a financial institution." I have always taken the position that
the employee should be the one to decide how they receive their pay. Whether it
be in the form of a cheque or whether it be in the form of a direct deposit
system, the employee should have the right to decide that. After all, they are
the people working for their money and they should be the ones to decide how it
is being paid.
The changes in the clothing allowance; again, I say to the minister, prior to
the changes made - that are before us - employees who were making minimum wage,
or just above, could be required to purchase their own uniforms that were
required in the workplace for the employee to wear. There was no onus on the
employer to provide the uniforms to the employees. This change certainly changes
that. It is great to see that people who have to buy clothing for their work
purposes, with their employers' insignia on the sleeve or on front, do not
have to spend their hard earned money in order to promote the company that they
work for, it is now an employer's obligation.
The amount of an employee's claim priority for unpaid wages would go from
$2,000 to $7,500. The amendment also provides that employer is considered to
hold unpaid wages in trust for an employee. Before, Mr. Speaker, as we know,
employees in the Province, in the case of a company folding, were the last in
line to get their money and, ninety-nine chances out of a hundred, by the time
it got to them there wasn't any money left in order for them to receive their
wages.
Mr. Speaker: "Clause 28 of the Bill would provide that an employer,
instead of providing a notice of intention to terminate in the event of a group
lay-off, may pay the wages of the employees in the group to whom the notice
would otherwise have been given." We have had some dealings with this in
the past in this Province under the Labour Standards. I recall, quite vividly,
in 1983-1984 there was a bill introduced in this House, Bill 38 - introduced, by
the way, by the party on my left, geographically speaking that is. The party on
my left introduced a bill and made it retroactive five years that took millions
of dollars out of the pockets of workers in Labrador City, Wabush, Corner Brook
and other places around this Province; and did so by making it retroactive five
years. I am glad to say that this is, once again, entrenched so that if
employers do not give the notice that is required under law, then they will have
to pay. I certainly hope that whatever administration may be in power, that that
is not tampered with in the future to the detriment of workers in this Province.
The investigations into complaints filed by the board - I want to advise the
minister that I have worked pretty closely with the Department of Labour over a
long period of time and, I say to the minister, there are good people in the
Department of Labour who take their jobs very seriously and do their jobs very
diligently.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: I commend your department on having employees there who take
their jobs real serious, but one of the problems that investigating officers in
your department have from time to time, particularly in Labrador - that is the
area I know best when this happens - is that if a person has a complaint with
Labour Standards next week and the investigating officer only left last week or
a month ago, it may be a very long extended period of time before that complaint
gets investigated. Generally, there have to be enough complaints in an area of
the Province that would generate a response by having someone go and
investigate, or it would operate on a time frame where there is a
schedule
saying: We are going to visit an area every four month or every six months,
whatever the case might be. At times, this unduly drags out the process in which
complaints should be dealt with in an expedient manner.
Last week, or the week before last, when the minimum wage increase was
announced in this House, I talked about the need, at that time, for a living
wage versus a minimum wage. I still believe that all of the things that are
contained in Bill 54 are things that apply - not necessarily 100 per cent but to
a large degree - to workers who are not unionized and workers who are making
minimum wage or barely above. There are exceptions to that, but by and large, as
a rule, these are the employees that this legislation applies to. If a person is
unionized, Mr. Speaker, obviously there is not much in their labour standards
that they need to rely on because they have collective agreements in place on
which to fall.
"Clause 31 of the Bill would also provide for the enforcement of a
determination of the Director of Labour Standards, or a labour standards officer
as if it were an order of the Trial Division." That is a good change as
well because that reinforces the seriousness of the investigating officers when
they go in. It gives them more authority and also puts them in line with the
same degree of respect that an arbitration award has in a unionized environment.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to clue up by saying to the minister, that these
changes we have before us today, while they are positive - there is no question
about that - for the people of this Province, it is not something that is done
now and forever taken care of for the future. Ongoing changes will continually
need to be made. As we work with this new legislation, I am sure that there will
be developments and problems that crop up from time to time that will have to be
addressed as that happens.
I say to the minister: This is a positive piece of legislation, one that I
certainly have no difficulty in supporting, one that I have been part of
advocating, for many of the changes contained here, over a long number of years,
and I am glad to see that progress is being made in this area. We will certainly
be supporting this bill when it comes to a vote in this House.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to add a few words to those of my colleague, the Member for
Labrador West, on the Labour Standards Act amendments. There are some very
important landmark changes in the labour standards legislation in this Province
as a result of this bill. The two I want to mention have to do with the director's
liability issue. For many, many years we were the only province in Canada where
there was no director's liability for unpaid wages. I never understood why
that was so, why the government seemed to think that this Province alone should
protect directors from liability for the unpaid wages of their employees. That
has been changed by this legislation, and now directors of companies have a
responsibility, clearly, to ensure that their employees get paid. The directors
have to take an active role in ensuring that employees get paid, or they will
find themselves responsible for the wages that were unpaid in the event of an
insolvency or a failure to pay.
The increase of the limit to $7,500 for unpaid wages is a very, very
important step as well. With raises in wages over the years it is important to
protect as much of an employee's income as you can, because you also have,
sometimes, severance pay and other things that might be associated with wages
that would remain unpaid if the amount were lower.
The important factor in that regard, though, is the federal bankruptcy
legislation that we have no control over, obviously, in this House. That is
something that is long overdue, needed change, and our party federally has made
a number of attempts to seek to have the bankruptcy legislation changed to
ensure that the first priority is given to employees' wages.
There is also a positive step, as the minister has pointed out, in ensuring
that there is no loophole in the minimum wage legislation to allow overtime
wages to be at time-and-a-half the minimum wage. An example would be, I suppose,
if somebody was paying $7.50 an hour, there would essentially be no overtime
under the old rate because $7.50 an hour worked out to time-and-a-half of a
$5.00 minimum wage. You could ask an employee to work extra hours and not pay
them any overtime at all, because you would be meeting the Labour Standards Act
in that regard.
There is a problem, and I am going to ask the minister if she would be
prepared to accept an amendment on this particular issue. It is one that my
colleague, the Member for Labrador West, has made, and it is an important point,
particularly in many areas of the Province where there are no banks or financial
institutions and, in fact, we see banks closing down at branches in various
parts of the Province from time to time. A couple have been announced in recent
weeks and months. Clause 15 of the bill allows an employer to make a payment of
employees' wages by direct deposit into an account of a bank of the employee's
choice. Now, granted, the employee may be able to choose a bank, but what if the
employee has no bank account? Why would you force an employee to deal with a
banking institution for the sake of receiving his or her wages? I think that
certainly to allow an employer to make a payment that way would be fine but it
should be based on the consent of an employee and not by an employer saying: The
only way I pay wages is into a bank account, so you have to get yourself a bank
account for a minimum wage job that I am offering you.
It does not seem to me to be proper to say to an employee that even without
their consent the employer has the right to go ahead and pay money into a bank
account by direct deposit rather than actually issue a cheque or cash to an
employee. I think there certainly should be a provision to make such a payment
lawful, I have no problem with that, but it should not be something that can be
forced on an employee.
I know that employees of the government, for example, have the right at this
stage to have money directed to an account but if you change this provision the
government could turn around tomorrow and say: We are issuing no more cheques.
We will only pay direct deposit to a bank or credit union.
That could be very inconvenient for some people who either do not have a bank
account or do not live near a bank, or do not have a bank or credit union in
their community. To force the payment to go to an account would be to force
someone perhaps to make a trip a number of miles to get access to their cash or
money. I think that is a provision that is perhaps too onerous on employees. If
we had a banking system that had a bank in every community, or a credit union in
every community, it might not be so onerous, but it does force someone to deal
with a banking institution whether they want to or not. I am wondering if the
minister, when she speaks at the close of this debate, will indicate whether she
is prepared to take under advisement an amendment to that provision that would
require the consent of an employee for this provision to come into force.
Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we endorse the provisions
that are made to amending the Labour Standards Act. They are long overdue in
some cases. I think there is a lot of pleasure around the Province with respect
to the fact that the Department of Labour is a single department now, with its
own responsibilities. That is considered very important. I would also say that
many of the improvements that we see in the Labour Standards Act are really the
work of the way being paved by the trade union movement.
I know that the Federation of Labour played an important role in assisting
the minister with advice and recommendations with respect to the amendments to
the Labour Standards Act,. What we see, really, is some of the provisions that
have been fought for and won by the labour movement with respect to collective
bargaining regimes are turning up and setting a higher standard of employment
relations in the Province. We see some of them being now put into law to ensure
that the employment standards for employees who are not covered by collective
bargaining agreement are in fact being brought up to standard on some of the
issues here that have been fought for and won by the labour movement through
collective bargaining. I think that is a positive thing as well.
We will, Mr. Speaker, be supporting these amendments and I hope that the
minister will consider an amendment to clause 15 as well.
Thank you.
MADAM SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I would like to add a few words to the points that have been made by members
on both sides of this Legislature with respect to this bill, Bill 54,
An Act To
Amend The Labour Standards Act. I certainly would wish to join with my
colleagues on this side of the House, and obviously join with the comments that
have been made by hon. members opposite, with the respect to the strengths of
this particular piece of legislation. Obviously, the legislation makes some
significant changes with respect to the employer-employee relationship which,
Madam Speaker, is a very important legal relationship, I would like to add.
Obviously, the duties and obligations and the rights and obligations of both
parties are often significant and they are spelled out very well in Bill 54.
I am not going to address the specific clauses. That has been done
adequately, I would think, Madam Speaker, by the points that have been made by
members on both sides of this Legislature; only to add, perhaps, in a global
sense, what this does. It strengthens a relationship between both an employer
and an employee to the point that this is clearly a win-win situation.
When we think, Madam Speaker, of labour standards, and how employees and
workers in our Province are to be treated and respected by employers; when we
think of labour standards laws and regulations in our Province, we tend to
overlook the significance of such legislation on the employer as opposed to the
employee. Obviously, this is important and there are significant benefits for
the employees and the workers of this Province, but the employer, the manager,
the owner, the proprietor, for example, these individuals also reap benefits, I
might add, Madam Speaker, simply because, as a result of these changes and as a
result of these proposals in this particular bill, there is an increased morale,
there is an increased degree of respectability by the employee towards his or
her employer, and what that does is, that only creates a win-win situation for
all those involved.
Madam Speaker, although obviously the objective here is ensure, and it is
obviously the priority objective, I would think, to ensure that employees and
workers in our Province are treated with dignity throughout the employment
period, however we should not underestimate the benefit to the overall
employer-employee relationship to the point that morale is enhanced, there is a
greater feeling of respectability by the employee to the employer, and that only
results in, in an overall sense, a much more worthwhile and beneficial working
environment. So that is perhaps a secondary benefit of this legislation. It is,
to put it simply, Madam Speaker, a win-win situation. The employees and the
workers of our Province again, but certainly the employer and certainly the
proprietor, the owner of that business operation, the owner of that store, the
owner of the professional office, whatever the situation might be, because of an
improved and enhanced working environment, the business establishment also wins.
I think we ought to not underestimate the impact that good labour standard
regulations and good labour standards laws have on all parties.
Madam Speaker, I believe my colleague, the Member for Kilbride, also wants to
make just a couple of comments. With those few comments, I will take my place.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I think one of the realities that defines a prosperous place, or one of the,
I guess, cornerstones or fundamentals that many societies today, in trying to
move forward as a society, create wealth, create jobs, drive an economic engine,
in attempting to create a better life, certainly one of the cornerstones of that
philosophy has to be a positive labour relations climate.
Madam Speaker,
An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act, as the minister has
alluded to, is a long overdue sweeping haul of this act. My understanding, based
upon comments both outside this House and inside, is that this was a process
initiated by government, employer and employee driven, that culminated in a body
of work presented both to the provincial government and ultimately to the
Cabinet, which eventually found itself into the act that is before us today.
My understanding is that not all recommendations - and the minister would
probably, if she could, in her concluding remarks - that were put forward by the
group assembled, from the Federation of Labor, the Employers' Council, and
representatives from the provincial government, were accepted carte blanche.
What we see in the Act today, certainly it is my understanding that the vast
majority of those recommendations found themselves contained in the current Act,
if I am correct.
Madam Speaker, we do not need to look too far to find where this sort of
model has had huge success in other places. To the east of us - across the pond
as we sometimes call it - but across the Atlantic ocean in the Republic of
Ireland, some fifteen years ago they found themselves in a crisis. That is the
best way to put it. They were on the brink of financial catastrophe, on the
brink of insolvency and bankruptcy as a nation. Fifteen years later the picture
has completely changed. They have a net immigration as opposed to out-migration.
They have an employment rate that is less than 4 per cent. Essentially, an
employment rate of less than four per cent means virtually unemployment is
non-existent, that the 4 per cent unemployment rate really reflects those
individuals who are between positions. In other words, they have left one
position and are on their way to another position. The job market is extremely
lucrative in that sense.
If you look at 200 years ago, when many people immigrated to this Province,
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, from places like Waterford, Wexford
and Cork, they came because there were no opportunities and they came to this
part of the world to create a life for themselves and their ancestors. Ireland's
model of economic turnaround was significant. In one election, actually, all of
the parties - because they have a multi-party system, there are two main parties
there - ran on the same platform. If you can believe that, about twelve to
fourteen years ago, all of the major political parties, from a financial point
of view and a standpoint of policy, ran on the same platform. This allowed
significant changes to occur in the Republic of Ireland. One of those changes
reflects the spirit, intent and philosophy that is contained in this Bill, An
Act To Amend The Labor Standards Act.
That was: Many of Ireland's largest and most powerful unions, the
government, the Irish Development Association, the IDA, which came out of that
process, got together in an employer-employee driven initiative and agreed to
certain principles. They agreed to a wage package over several years that was
guaranteed and, in return, no strike agreements were entered into for most of
the labor unions.
What we see here is very similar in this sense. We see a model that has
worked in other parts of the globe, not only in Ireland but in Scandianian
countries as well, other provinces, but what we see successfully implemented
here is a working group from what would be seen at both ends of the spectrum,
the employer and the employee, facilitated by the Department of Labor, come
together to define a relationship. Now, in many ways, that relationship was
already defined, but certainly not defined in law, in
an act. Many employers, if
not most, operate in the spirit and intent of what is contained in the bill. One
of the most positive elements of it is that it defines, in legislation, and
therefore in regulation, once the regulatory regime is established - and I would
suspect that it already is, to be approved by Cabinet or the Lieutenant-Governor
in Council - it establishes and defines, for both the employee and employer, a
framework by which their relationship is going to be governed henceforward, or
here on in.
I just want to add my voice to this particular piece of legislation, Madam
Speaker, in saying that we fully endorse and support the principles upon which
this was brought forward, we fully endorse and support the clauses contained in
the bill with one exception; not what is in the bill but what is not in the
bill. It is the issue dealing with Sunday shopping. It is still a controversial
issue with respect to many people in the workplace. It is one, I think, that
many people in the workplace, particularly in the retail sector today, are still
looking for a resolution to. However, that debate will be left for another day.
I want to, generally on the framework of the bill, as put forward in terms of
keeping my comments relevant in second reading to the legislation, to say that
we are pleased to support it. We will be pleased to support it in Committee and
to ensure that this particular piece of legislation moves expeditiously through
all committee stages so that, in fact, it can come into force and be made law as
soon as possible, gazetted and the associated regulations accompanying that
legislation be sent to all employers within Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labour will speak now to close
the debate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I would like to thank all members in this House today for their valuable
contribution by way of debate on this Bill 54. It is clear that Bill 54 is an
important piece of legislation because we are hearing unanimous support from all
sides of the House, and that is very important.
I would like to just refer to a couple of issues that were raised by hon.
members. The Member from Labrador West, I would like to thank him for his
confidence of the Department of Labour. When you look at the fact that the
Department of Labour oversees over 500 collective agreements in this Province,
and they oversee also 109,000 workers who are non-unionized and 70,000 workers
who are unionized, it is a very busy department, when you look at the number of
employees that are employed by the Department of Labour. So, I do thank you for
your compliment.
With reference to the issue that was raised by the Member from Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi, clause 15. I would like to say to the member opposite, that
that particular clause, clause 15, speaks to the employer's right to choose
the method of payment to pay the employees. The intent of that clause was to
allow the employer to choose the method of payment, whether it be a cheque or a
deposit directly to a bank account or a credit union deposit. What is being said
in clause 15 is that if the employer chooses to pay by way of direct deposit,
the employee would have the choice as to which financial institution that
particular pay would be deposited to. When you look at the fact that all
nineteen stakeholders agreed to this particular clause, I would not want to
break it down, I would like for it to stay exactly as it was recommended. In
other words, leaving employers the right to choose the method of payment. When
you look at the fact that the Federation of Labour and the Employers' Council,
nineteen stakeholders in the Province recommended that particular clause. The
intention: I would like to leave it in tact.
The Member for Kilbride, the Opposition House Leader, made reference to the
fact that not all recommendations were accepted. The majority of recommendations
were accepted and they are now in this bill. There were no recommendations
rejected. Exactly! There are a few that require further study and all
stakeholders agree that, yes, there will be further study. I think what we are
saying, from the Department of Labour's point of view, is that, on an annual
basis we will now conduct further study into labour standards issues in a round
table forum.
I think what we are seeing here is a threshold of minimum standards for
employment in this Province that has the support of business, government and
labour. It is definitely a positive happening here today. There is a lot to be
said in this particular bill, Bill 54. What we are doing in the Department of
Labour, is developing a user-friendly handbook both for employees and employers
that will contain all the provisions of Bill 54. It is important that employees
and employers know what their rights and responsibilities are. It can only lead
to better morale, as many members of the opposite side have indicated, better
working relationships, better morale and better productivity for our entire
Province.
With that being said, Madam Speaker, I would like to close debate now and
thank all members.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act," read
a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on
tomorrow." (Bill 54).
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole to resume the adjourned debate on Bill 46,
An Act
Respecting The Child And Youth Advocate.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Madam
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR (Mercer): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I rise on a point of order. I believe it was late last week when we were in
debate on this. Just for a recap, so we understand in terms of the context of
where we are. We had agreed, as opposed to going clause-by-clause, that there
were a couple of amendments that were put forward to the minister. So the debate
was a little bit more open in terms that we deal with the amendments as put
forward by the Opposition to the Minister of Health and Community Services, and
once those amendments made to particular sections of this act had been
concluded, once the debate had finished, then we would move into passing the
bill clause-by-clause from there. I just want to make sure that is the
understanding. That is how we were operating last week.
Mr. Cha