Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 5 December 2006 (45th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLV No. 34)
2006-12-05
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 5, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 34
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
This afternoon we are very pleased to welcome members of the Farm Industry
Review Board. They are Martin Hammond, the chairperson; Violet Parsons, the vice
chairperson. Members are: Wayne Ruth, John Dinn, Rita Legge, Connie Stewart and
Merv Wiseman.
Welcome to our House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the
hon. the Member for Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South;
the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon. the Member for
Exploits; the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; and the hon. the
Member for Bonavista North.
The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Town of St.
Lawrence and its residents. The St. Lawrence Centennial Soccer Pitch has been
designated as a Municipal Heritage Site by the Heritage Foundation of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
The president of the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador, Robert
Parsons, presented a plaque designating the site during the St. Lawrence Soccer
Association's annual banquet and awards night.
The Historic Places Initiative Program has designated significant sites in
talents or municipalities as historical sites. The Town of St. Lawrence
researched and applied for four sites within its town for designation under the
Historic Places Initiative Program. Recently, the Truxtun Shipwreck Site at
Chamber Cove was designated, as well as the Salt Springs Mine Site. The Soccer
Pitch is the third.
The first recorded soccer game in St. Lawrence was in 1904 between the St.
Lawrence Laurentians and a team from St. John's. The title, Soccer Capital of
Canada was bestowed on St. Lawrence by the Canadian Soccer Association. The
Centennial Soccer Pitch is culturally valuable because it reflects the
importance the sport has played in the community over the years and the values
that have been transmitted to children and adults.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the
Town of St. Lawrence and its residents on this latest recognition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize two exceptionally young athletes, Mr. Nick Hayden
and Ms Michelle Rideout, who were recently named the top male and female
provincial players of the year, respectively, at the Newfoundland and Labrador
Amateur Baseball's annual general meeting in Gander.
Michelle Rideout is a member of the Bantam Girls Selects who represented the
Province at the Nationals in Alberta. In this tournament, she batted an
impressive 364, and was the top pitcher, pitching twelve innings and striking
out twenty-three batters. Incidentally, she also led the team in RBIs.
Naturally, Michelle was named her team's MVP at the Bantam Provincials this
season in St. John's.
During the 2006 season, Nick Hayden was a key player with the CBS Raiders
team in the Mount Pearl Junior League. Mr. Hayden is a well-rounded player who
has excelled in every aspect of the game, on the mound, in the infield and in
the outfield, as well as being one of the most consistent and feared hitters in
the league. At only sixteen-years-old, he is one of the most talented players in
the Province, earning numerous awards.
Mr. Speaker, these two individuals have represented our Province well and
made us proud. I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating Nick
Hayden and Michelle Rideout, Newfoundland and Labrador Amateur Baseball's top
male and female provincial players of the year.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Matt Bramwell, a
Carbonear native and winning pitcher who helped capture the American Softball
Association's national championship this past summer.
Mr. Speaker, a strong arm in Carbonear softball has moved on to bigger and
greater gains and he is doing it American style. Matt Bramwell, who pitched with
local softball leagues while growing up in Carbonear, is currently playing ball
with Circle Tap, a major fast pitch team out of Green Bay, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
Matt began pitching ball in Carbonear in 1992, the same year his team hosted
and won the Provincial Summer Games. It was also the same year Circle Tap was
founded. Matt was the winning pitcher for the team August 4, when Circle Tap won
the American Softball Association's national championship. The team competes
nationwide in the American Softball Association and the international softball
congress.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first season Matt has played with the American
League. After playing with Frankenmuth, Michigan, and Impact Signs of the St.
John's Seniors Men's A League last season, who finished second in the
Canadian nationals, the first base player and pitcher was recruited to Wisconsin
in the off season.
Matt, who now lives in Halifax and works as a registered nurse in the
Intensive Care Unit at Capital Health, travels to the U.S. on weekends to play
invitational tournaments.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in
congratulating Matt Bramwell, the winning pitcher who helped capture the
American Softball Association's national championship.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Exploits.
MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the hard work and
dedication of the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre Auxiliary.
Mr. Speaker, the auxiliary was formed at the old cottage hospital in 1986,
and there are still eight dedicated members who were present at that first
meeting: Doris Jerrett, Hazel Elliott, Pansy Yates, Hazel Waterman, Florence
Hancock, Doreen Jewer, Melinda Sparkes, and Bertha Butler. These volunteers run
the gift shop, hold fundraisers, and they also volunteer with activities for the
residents.
Mr. Speaker, all funds raised go back to the Twomey Centre for much needed
items for the residents. They have raised thousands of dollars since 1986,
including recently the renovation of a palliative care room at a cost of
approximately $15,000.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating these dedicated
volunteers on receiving their Life Membership for twenty years of service.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on November 25, I was delighted to attend the forty-first annual
Charter Night of the Harbour Breton Lions Club. I was able to share an evening
of celebration with District Governor Oral Clarke, President Leo Baker, local
Lions and invited guests.
The highlight of the evening was the presentation of the Lion of the Year
Award. Mr. Lloyd Blake, a twenty year member of the club, received this
prestigious award for his years of dedicated service. Lloyd remains a very
active Lion and is well known for his contribution to organizing the annual
Speak-off and Citizen of the Year Banquet for the club.
Mr. Speaker, there were three Lion members who received the thirty year
Chevron Award. They were: Stan Tibbo, Claude Rose, and Will Strickland.
The most remarkable part of the evening was the introduction of ten former
Lioness into the Lions Club. Due to the economic situation of the community, the
Lioness Club had difficulty with fundraising and membership within their club
dropped; however, the remaining members were committed to continue their active
participation in the community. They approached the Lions to join their
organization and, for the first time ever, these ladies became members of the
Harbour Breton Lions Club.
Mr. Speaker, the new members are: Vera Mullins, Georgina Ollerhead, Diane
Mullins, Emily Grant, Nancy Snook, Patsy Snook, Charlotte Snook, Lillian Colombe,
Lillian Hynes, and Marie White.
The Lions Club in Harbour Breton continues to be one of the most important
charitable organization in that community. Their involvement includes operation
of the community ambulance service, senior citizens' cottages, and local
playground. They financially support local residents in need for medical travel,
sponsor socializing events for seniors, contribute to local schools and sponsor
the local cadet corps, just to name a few of their activities.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating the Harbour
Breton Lions Club for hosting a successful charter night. I congratulate the
award winners and new members and extend best wishes for their continued service
to the residents of Harbour Breton.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and acknowledge
the achievement of a tremendously talented artist from Bonavista North.
Janet Davis, owner of Norton's Cove Studio, Brookfield, was recently
recognized by the Craft Council of Newfoundland and Labrador for her efforts
related to the preservation and advancement of our culture and heritage. Ms
Davis received an award for Excellence in Craft in the category of
Interpretation of Provincial History. The presentation ceremony took place at
the recent opening of the Fine Craft and Design Fair in St. John's.
The award, sponsored by the Historic Sites Association, was presented
primarily with reference to an eight by ten foot hooked mat entitled: Clifford's
Education Fund. The hooked mat depicted salt fish drying on a constructed flake.
The piece is currently being displayed at The Rooms Museum as a part of the
Traditions in Transition Exhibition and can be seen until January 21.
Ms Davis is also an exceptional print maker, and her work reflects essential
elements of our past in a very important way. Her work captures the beauty and
strength of outport Newfoundland culture.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Ms Janet
Davis on her award and her continued efforts to preserve the culture and
heritage of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my colleagues about the successes three
clients of the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development have
enjoyed as a result of participating in our trade missions this fall.
Holly Howard Incorporated of Conception Bay South, creator of the popular
Puff Baby clothing line, was a first-time participant in the department's
recent trade mission to Florida. The company's goal for the mission was to
determine if there was interest in the product line outside of this Province.
Holly Howard, the company's founder, says the mission greatly exceeded her
expectations. After taking in nine meetings in Florida, the company has received
three sales orders, with two additional leads for future sales. Also, the
company is presently in talks with Walt Disney corporation about submitting
design samples and possibly becoming one of Disney's vendors.
Pixecur Technologies of St. John's is a growing, dynamic company with an
innovative vision. Pixecur's participation in trade missions to Florida and
Ireland this fall marked the companies first foray into export markets, and
their Internet-based data storage technology is capturing attention in these
markets. After making eighteen promising international business connections,
Pixecur is currently focused on the necessary follow-up and closing deals.
Tom Chalker, the company's owner, believes the missions to Florida and
Ireland have resulted in a strong potential for international sales, and have
given his company enhanced credibility in new export markets. Mr. Chalker says
Pixecur is now better equipped to serve potential clients abroad, after
participating in these missions.
Ewe Design, based in Trinity Bight, crafts traditional knitwear using 100 per
cent homespun wools and novelty yarns. The company enjoyed great success during
a recent trade mission to Iceland, signing a lucrative sales order with Iceland's
largest wool store, ALAFOSS. The company also confirmed a second sales order as
a result of the mission.
Company owner, Joan Kane, was equally successful in securing a supply of
popular Icelandic wool to use in her companies creations. Mr. Speaker, I would
like to note that all of Ewe Design's products are hand-knit in the homes of
women in the Trinity Bight area.
Mr. Speaker, without the financial and logistical assistance that government
provides, many companies would be unable to explore export markets or arrange
these meetings on their own, making it difficult, if not impossible to penetrate
new markets.
I ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to join with me in congratulating these
companies and wish them continued success for the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement today.
As I read the first paragraph, it said, "I would like to inform my
colleagues about the successes three clients of the Department of Innovation,
Trade and Rural Development have enjoyed ..." I immediately thought, he
must be talking about Persona, Rogers and MTS Allstream, but as I read down
through, Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS FOOTE: - I recognized that there are three local companies. I want to
congratulate those companies as well. Obviously, they have done very well, and
being able to go on the trade missions spoke volumes, I think, for that success.
I encourage them to continue to do the type of work that they are doing,
because, of course, what it does, it puts on display the -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member does have some seconds left and if she wishes to continue I
ask members for their co-operation.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious that they do not like to hear
the truth. If you want to talk about truth, let's talk about $15 million being
spent on Persona. Imagine how many companies could get to go on trade missions
if we took that $15 million and made it possible for other local companies to,
in fact, go to different parts of this world. If you want to talk about waste of
money, let's talk about your $15 million for Persona and then we will talk
about what you are doing as a government in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time has expired.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy. I, too, congratulate the
companies who were chosen to be part of the trade missions. I am obviously very
pleased to see such results and I would hope that we can involve many more
companies as time goes on.
I would be pleased, though, if the government would also recognize that they
just did not do this on their own, that our government is involved in the Team
Canada Atlantic venture and that it is a joint effort of governments together,
including ACOA, to do this.
MR. TAYLOR: It was only in Florida (inaudible).
MS MICHAEL: Only Florida, Mr. Speaker, but two of them were Florida, so I
think it would be good to recognize the joint nature of this effort.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, for over a month now we have been asking questions about the
fibre optic deal in which the Province and the taxpayers of this Province have
invested $15 million. We have asked a lot of questions, but we have had few, if
any, answers.
My question today is for the Premier, and it is simple and straightforward.
Will you tell us, Premier, how much each of these partners, other than
government - namely, Persona, MTS Allstream and Rogers - are putting into this
deal?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When this is all concluded, all of the information surrounding that will be
laid in front of everybody. Mr. Speaker, right now we are in for approximately
30 per cent of the cost of this infrastructure and a private consortium is in
for the remainder, approximately 70 per cent; $37 million will be put in by the
private sector and $15 million will be put in by the government.
Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition want to look back over the deals that they
have done on telecommunications, or otherwise, in Newfoundland and Labrador, I
am sure they will not find one example of infrastructure development in the
telecommunications industry in Newfoundland and Labrador where 70 per cent has
been put in by the private sector and 30 per cent by the public sector. Not even
close, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister talks about telephone contracts and telecommunications deals,
maybe the Premier will get up one of these days and tell us about the one that
he did with a government not too many years ago.
Mr. Speaker, what the minister is saying is absolutely ridiculous. We are
putting $15 million of taxpayers' dollars on the table and he will not even
stand today and tell us what percentage or what amount each of these individual
companies are putting in.
I ask the minister: What are you hiding?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what he is talking about. What is he talking
about, hiding? The EWA report is out there. We have already told them, told
everybody in the Province, that the Auditor General can have full access to all
of this. We are in the midst of trying to develop the terms of reference. We are
in the midst of identifying the additional funds that the Auditor General
requires in order to complete his evaluation and his assessment of the deal.
What is it they are looking for? Why don't they read some of the
documentation that is out there, like, for example, Mr. Speaker, the report that
was done by Industry Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency on the broadband situation in Newfoundland
and Labrador? Why doesn't he read the part that says, for example, in this
Province the competitive marketplace is defined rather differently than the rest
of Canada as true competition does not exist?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister just said that we are putting in 30 per cent. The other three
companies - and he did not even say that, the other three, he said the
consortium are putting in 70 per cent.
Why don't you give us a breakdown of how that 70 per cent is divided. How
much is Rogers putting into that, how much is Persona putting into that, and how
much is MTS Allstream putting into it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the important thing for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador
is that their money, $15 million of their money, is going in to buy an asset, an
asset, Mr. Speaker, that Trevor Miller, who wrote the Leader of the Opposition,
who runs a telecommunications company in Central Newfoundland, in Grand
Falls-Windsor, who condemns the Leader of the Opposition and his party for the
opposition that they have to this deal - maybe he might want to read out what it
says here about the need for this infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Maybe he wants to read what Mr. Harry Tucker says about the need for this
infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, he wants to
read what everybody else in the telecommunications industry has said; and, Mr.
Speaker, maybe he will want to review the deals that they did with Aliant and
others in the past.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister: Why don't you tell the
public why you constantly try to evade the question? Why don't you give the
answers? You talk about the EWA, the Electronic Warfare Associates report. I
have read it ten or twelve times. Mr. Speaker, in the EWA report it states that
Persona requires provincial funds of $15 million. It states the Persona requires
$15 million of government funds to implement this project.
I have a question for the minister: Are we funding Persona's share of this
deal? Is that what we are doing here?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, why doesn't he go
back and look at April, 1997: Government and Aliant partner on Network
Newfoundland and Labrador. Was there a tender call? No, Mr. Speaker. Total
provincial contribution: $750,000 on a $1.5 million project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TAYLOR: Aliant. Listen, will you?
Mr. Speaker, updated Industrial Benefits Agreement with Newtel, was there any
tender or RFP? No, Mr. Speaker.
Government contracts Newtel for long distance telephone service in December,
1999, $5.18 million. Was there a tender or an RFP? No, Mr. Speaker, there was
not. What was the total cost, Mr. Speaker? One hundred per cent funded by the
Province.
Let me go on down; let's go on down: SmartLabrador Smart Community contract
awarded. Was there a deal with Aliant, Mr. Speaker? One million dollars, again,
provincial contribution.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister, now that he is up talking about untender projects with
the previous government, ask the Premier: The one that he received from the
government, was that tendered or did it go to Cabinet? Ask him that when you get
a chance, I say to the minister.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are putting 29 per cent -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
Colleagues, the Speaker will recess the House if we do not get co-operation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition, who is putting a question.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we are, as the taxpayers of this Province,
investing 30 per cent, as the minister just said, into this deal. He refuses
time and time again to tell me if Persona is even contributing towards this
project.
I will ask you again: Is your good friend, Mr. MacDonald, the CEO of Persona,
and Persona, contributing anything to this project, and, if so, how much?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said before - I do not know what rabbit hole he is
trying to run down now, but anyway - $37 million between Persona, MTS Allstream
and Rogers, that is the total between the three partners. That is what is being
put in there in private-sector funding. We are putting $15 million in there.
Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe he wants to explain to us the $250,000 they spent for
the good things happening campaign. Maybe he will want to tell us about the
$300,000 that they spent on the millennium celebrations down on the waterfront.
Maybe they want to tell us about the $635,000 that they paid for the ad campaign
to promote the Voisey's Bay agreement. Remember that infamous deal?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. TAYLOR: Maybe they want to tell us about the $182,000 paid to Bristol
for the Lower Churchill ad campaign, for a deal that did not exist.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TAYLOR: Maybe when the Leader of the Opposition gets up he can inform
us on that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources, and I hope your answers
are more substantive than those that the Minister of Innovation gave, rather
than a bunch of fluff.
Anyway, Minister, I asked you yesterday for the information about the Bull
Arm security building contract. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs told
me last week in Question Period that I could have it and would have it. You have
been putting out press releases about it. You tell me we can have it, but we
still do not have it.
I ask you again: When are you going to stop this sham, stop protecting Ms
Cleary and your Tory friends, and give us the information?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is our commitment to openness and transparency that allowed the process
that did take place with Ms Cleary absenting herself from the process because of
the involvement of their friends on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker,
that we find ourselves in this situation.
The Opposition House Leader asked yesterday that the documents be filed in
this House. I agreed readily to that. They are being prepared as we speak, Mr.
Speaker, and we fully expect to be able to table those documents in the House
tomorrow.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister must think, and the government must think, everybody in this
Province and in the media live in a bubble. People ask you straightforward
questions and they expect straightforward answers and performance. You have to
stop hiding behind these shams.
Minister, you admitted yesterday that someone overlooked - and that is your
word - the core certification requirement when this work went to a second bid. A
very convenient oversight, since that oversight permitted the campaign manager
for Ms Cleary, a defeated Tory candidate in the last election, to then bid the
project.
Who is responsible for seeing that these bidding requirements are complied
with? Was it someone in your department? Was it the site manager? Was it the
Bull Arm Site Corporation itself or was it Ms Cleary?
When will you stop covering up and tell us, please, who was responsible for
making sure that this requirement is done, or ought to have been done? You have
fired people for less than that.
I put it to you, Minister, that this was not an oversight but someone gave
explicit instructions that core certification was not a requirement the second
time around.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Opposition House Leader can suppose as much as he wants. That does not
make it right or true, what you are saying.
This government is absolutely committed to the policy of core registration.
We will ensure that all our commissions and agencies and boards are aware of the
policy requirement.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, the Public Tender Act was followed and the
security shed was completed, saving the people of this Province $51,000, Mr.
Speaker, and that is the bottom line.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What an absolute sham. What a sham! Tell us the information, Minister. Who
said that core certification was not a requirement the second time around? That
is not a tough question. Tell the truth and tell the answer. Who said core
certification did not have to be in there?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Nobody said that core certification was not necessary the second time around.
It was an oversight, Mr. Speaker, and we are taking measures to ensure that does
not happen again.
This government is absolutely concerned with safety, and we commit to safety
requirements on all our projects. It is the reason why we were replacing the
security shed in the first place, Mr. Speaker, ensuring the safety of the people
who work there.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The more the minister continues to refuse to give the answers to that
question, the more the people of this Province know that the Bull Arm security
building contract stinks to the high heavens and that it was done for one of
your Tory buddies, the same as the Persona deal was done.
My next question - and then I will come back to that one because we will keep
onto this core thing until we get at the truth. This is only one example of how
this government completely disregards the policies and laws of this Province
when it does not suit them. If you need to help a Tory buddy, or one of the
Premier's friends, it is okay, forget about the laws and policies.
In the past three weeks, we have had three examples of where this government
has refused to comply with their own policies and laws. One was, we put the $15
million into the fibre optics deal, contrary to the policy of the Department of
Business; secondly, the minister admitted in her own press release last week
that she did not file the proper forms under the Public Tender Act; and thirdly
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the member to put his question directly.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The third one was the failure to put core certification in.
My question of the minister is: When are you going to remove Ms Cleary from
her position at the Bull Arm site Corp. and stop allowing that corporation, a
Crown agency, to be used as a feed trough for your Tory buddies?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you something: I know what
you call it when you are able to use the right hand as well as the left hand. It
is called ambidextrous. I would like to know what you call it when you can use
one side of your mouth as well as the other side because we can apply it to
these people on a daily basis.
There was no miscarriage of any kind of justice here. The Public Tender Act
was followed. There were two oversights. Ms Cleary was not involved at all in
the assignment of the second tender. The security shed was replaced at a cost of
$51,000 to the people of this Province, showing that the initial decision to
reject the initial tender was the correct one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, once again we see the Transportation and Works
department not prepared for the winter season. We hear reports of only one lane
open on our Trans-Canada Highway, reports that the major roads were not plowed
while traffic tries to beat a path through the heavy snow.
The minister committed that all operators and personnel would be in place by
November 1, 2006. This is not the case. There are operators still waiting to be
called and it is December.
Will the minister immediately recall all operators so that our highways are
made safe, as they should be, in our Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his question.
Mr. Speaker, all employees of the Department of Transportation and Works have
been recalled this year on the same
schedule and according to the same protocols
as they have been recalled in the past. The department has 450 pieces of
equipment, 80 per cent of which is available on the highways. Transportation is
working this year in accordance with the same schedules and call backs and hours
of work that they have worked for the last number of decades in this Province.
Nothing has changed, Mr. Speaker. Everything is working according to normal this
year as it did every other year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is good to see the minister is back in
the Province because he should phone some operators who are still waiting to get
called back. They are still not called back, minister. You do not know what you
are talking about.
Mr. Speaker, the closing of thirteen depots in our Province is having a
detrimental effect on the preparation for the winter operations. We saw
mechanics laid off this past summer and now our road equipment is ill equipped.
Ironically, we heard the Minister of Government Services just this week
promoting safe highways: You Are in Control. Perhaps we should
educate the Minister of Transportation and Works, that safe highways include
those that are snow free and ice free.
Minister, our roads are simply not safe. Workers are trying to catch up from
the layoffs imposed by your government this past summer. Will you now commit the
funds necessary to make our roads safe? Remember, minister, You
Are in Control.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, it is kind of a laugh to hear the Member for
Bay of Islands talking about somebody needing to be educated. If there was ever
a laugh, that is a laugh, Mr. Speaker.
The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that all of the transportation people
have been called back this year the same as past years. The winterization of
thirteen depots has nothing to do with the present situation. All of those
depots are now open for the season as they were last year and the year before.
People have been called back as necessary, as per the protocols, as per the
collective agreements. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is swinging in the wind,
haven't got a clue what he is talking about. He is lost, Mr. Speaker, even
within the walls of this Chamber.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, if this wasn't such a serious issue I would
call the minister a bit of a joker. He should read the paper, Mr. Speaker. In
this weekend's paper - I do not know if he is back yet from his junkets -
heavy equipment operator, heavy equipment technician, mechanic. There are over
sixty positions not filled in the department this year. He should look at the
paper. He should ask the minister.
Mr. Speaker, we hear of horror stories where people travelling our roads
between 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. are doing so at their own risk. There are no
snowplow operators on our highways at that time. Supervisors, Mr. Speaker, do
not have the authority to recall road staff.
I heard of stories today where people travelling to Deer Lake Airport in the
early hours - and the Premier should be concerned about this, it is on the West
Coast, people from our district, Premier - travelled with snow covered roads not
plowed, that are unsafe and dangerous.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the member now to put his question, quickly.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Will the minister immediately correct this departmental policy and allow the
snow clearing equipment on our roads when there is snow, not trying to save a
few dollars so the Premier can boast about the money his government is saving?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, what a load of nonsense coming from the hon.
gentleman opposite. Mr. Speaker, he hasn't got a clue of what he is talking
about. He gets up and spends about two or three minutes on a
preamble. He has to
be forced by the Chair to ask the question.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing being done that is different this year than any
other year. People have not been laid off. He talked in his long, wandering
preamble about advertisements. A temporary list, Mr. Speaker, that is what was
advertised. We have temporary recalls so that if people, long-term employees,
permanent employees of the department, are sick or ill, have to go to the
hospital, we have somebody to replace them with, Mr. Speaker. That is good
management, Mr. Speaker. That is what this government is all about, good
management. I know the hon. gentleman does not like it, but, Mr. Speaker, he can
lump it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question today is for the Minister of Health.
The federal cuts to child care meant that government scaled back its
five-year child care plan by $53.4 million. Some of this money could have been
used to develop a publicly funded, not-for-profit child care system. Instead, we
have a patchwork of private and non-profit centres chronically short of
resources for child development programming.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if his government will make a commitment to
create a publicly funded, not-for-profit child care system?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, currently operating in this Province are a
number of child care operators. Some of them are regulated, some of the
operations are unregulated.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is - I mean, I will take the member's suggestion
under consideration but the reality is - we are not in the business of providing
child care as a government program in the Province. We are in the business, Mr.
Speaker, of helping those who are in business, existing operators, existing
businesses, to stay in business and to try to provide and to help those
individuals and those operations to be more secure.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to sit down any day with the
minister and talk about how we can publicly fund a not-for-profit system without
government having to be into the job itself.
Mr. Speaker, the lack of occupational standards for early childhood educators
in this Province means that wages can vary from $7 an hour up to $12 an hour.
Also, there is no official pay distinction between Level I and Level II
certification, and few of the workers have health benefits.
What is this government going to do - and it must do this, it has to do it -
to introduce acceptable working conditions for early childhood educators and a
wage scale that reflects the level of post-secondary education necessary for the
workers and the responsibility of the job?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, this government is not going to shut down
private daycare operators, and if that is what the -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: If that is what the Leader of the NDP is asking me to do,
Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, we are not going to shut down operators in this
Province. We are going to try and work with them to make the operations better,
Mr. Speaker.
We are working with the operators, Mr. Speaker. Government is providing
additional funding to low-income staff with one or two years of training,
working in the centres. The full amount available to those earning less than
$25,000 will be on a sliding scale and, Mr. Speaker, we will be providing up to
$2,000 per year, per staff member, to try and improve recruitment and retention
within the existing operations, Mr. Speaker. We are also providing bursaries. We
are also providing educational supplements to try and recruit and retain early
learning and child care workers within the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi, on a very
brief supplementary.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not asking for things to be shut down. I am asking for a fully
regulated, fully publicly-funded system.
I understand that there is now an industrial -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, who
has time for a very brief supplementary.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you.
I want to ask the minister if he is going to ask for an interim report from
the Industrial Adjustment Committee now looking into what can be done about the
low pay and shortage of staff. I am interested in an interim report so that he
will have it in time to set aside funds in the next budget to properly
compensate early childhood educators, instead of waiting until March, 2007, for
the report.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi
certainly did indicate or suggest that we shut down the private operators by
suggesting that we bring in a public system. That is not going to happen.
Mr. Speaker, I can say to the member opposite that we are only partway
through year one of a five-year plan, a plan that was strongly endorsed by the
child care operators, by the association, and I am asking the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi to give it a chance to work, because it is already showing signs
of success.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, this past month we have seen several schools
around this Province close because air quality and other maintenance problems
have made them unfit to occupy. Now that the number of serious problems in
schools continues to escalate, I ask the minister: Will she do the right thing
and carry out a comprehensive review of air quality, including toxic mould in
all schools across the Province, and would she commit to make this report
public?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising, after fifteen years of
neglect, that we have problems with the infrastructure in our schools.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the previous Administration did air quality
testing in 1998; they spent $2.6 million testing air quality in 1998. In 1999,
they approved less than $1 million to fix leaky roofs, which is the number one
reason why we have mold in our schools. Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, in
their last two years in administration, they spent less than $2 million fixing
leaky roofs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in the last two years, with this year not over
yet, we have invested at least $11 million in leaky roofs, so we are putting our
money into this procedure.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister: I don't care if it was one year ago or fifteen years
ago, the mold that is in our schools today should be corrected, and the minister
knows the difference.
Mr. Speaker, people are telling us that problems exist in other schools.
Parents and staff -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member is asking a question. I ask members for their co-operation.
The Member for Port de Grave has the floor to ask his question.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection from Mr. Jelly
Bean himself.
Mr. Speaker, people are telling us that problems exist in other schools.
Parents and staff are concerned that they have a right to know the facts. Just
this week, the minister indicated in the media that she would prefer to direct
funds to maintenance rather than carry out a study. Does the minister not see
that, in order to have each and every school safe and healthy in this Province,
we first have to know exactly where the serious problems exist? As it stands now
we do not know, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that we do know where
the problems are. What we are trying to do is, this year alone we have already
awarded contracts of $6.6 million. We are ready to award another $12 million,
with another $1.3 million outstanding. Mr. Speaker, that is $20 million in work
this year. We have increased our base budget for renovations and maintenance in
our schools from $25 million to $37 million.
In addition to putting money into our schools, into the capital and into the
renovations, we have also been able to invest in the ABE program, we have a
skilled trades program, we have eliminated school fees, we have invested in
physical education equipment, and we are after putting a freeze on tuition at
Memorial University.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member has about 30 seconds for a question and 30 seconds for a reply.
The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, my last question to the minister is this: Can
the minister tell the House if the amount required to build a school in Mobile
is still within the original budgeted amount, or are there any overrun problems
associated with this project?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, what I can say is, with our capital budget for
maintenance and capital in education, we have increased it this year by $12
million. We are doing the work out there, Mr. Speaker. There are schools that
need to be replaced. There are schools that need to be renovated. We will work
with all the schools that need the work done, and if there are cost overruns
that we need to address in order to make sure we have adequate infrastructure in
this Province, Mr. Speaker, we will do just that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
Tabling of Documents
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Colleagues, I wish to continue with the routine proceedings.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motions.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act.
(Bill 64)
Further, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 65)
Furthermore, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 3. (Bill 63)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to
introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective
Bargaining Act. (Bill 68)
Also, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 69)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 67)
I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code. (Bill 66)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise again today on a petition on behalf of the residents of Lark Harbour
and Route 450 concerning the road conditions that exist. I know yesterday, when
I was giving my words and I was getting leave, the Minister of Fisheries, one of
the former, former Ministers of Transportation and Works, had denied me leave so
I could not finish yesterday. So, I am standing here today - I know that was the
same minister, when I was trying to get the road in McIver's fixed, who was
singing out across the House saying: There's no problem with the road; no
problem. I should tell the minister, the next time you want to see it you should
look at it, instead of flying over on one of your junkets over in Russia looking
at it from 20,000 feet above. You should drive it and see the problems with the
road and stop just looking at it from the air.
Mr. Speaker, the people in Lark Harbour and all through the South Shore and
North Shore are experiencing major safety road concerns; major safety concerns.
I have been fighting now for three or four years with this here. It is
unbelievable, some of their priorities. I will give an example, Mr. Speaker:
$450,000 to open up some property up on Massey Drive because the Minister of
Justice made a commitment somewhere to open up some property up on Massey Drive.
It has nothing to do with any highway. Absolutely nothing! It is building a new
road for a sub-development up on Massey Drive. Here we have roads in the Bay of
Islands that cannot even get proper pavement, cannot get the gabion baskets
fixed. We have major safety concerns.
Until the people and myself, this year, brought it to the minister's
attention, the white lines were not even going to be put on the road going out
towards Lark Harbour. It is a shame! It is an absolute shame! And here we talk
about all the money being spent on the roads, Mr. Speaker. Last year there was
$12 million not spent. This year, I would say, it will be about $18 million to
$20 million not spent again. Here we see priorities -
MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. JOYCE: I hear the former Minister of Transportation and Works. I have
to give the Premier credit, he could not allow that minister to stay there with
the road conditions over the winter that we had for two years in a row. I have
to give the Premier credit, you got rid of him because of our unsafe highways. I
have to give him credit.
We have the current minister right now who refuses - we had the former
minister, the Minister of Fisheries, we had the Minister of Innovation, Trade
and Rural Development, and now we have the Minister of Transportation and Works
who absolutely refuses to meet with any town council to discuss the road
conditions in the Bay of Islands. It is unheard of, it is unbelievable. Those
ministers have to realize somewhere along the line that you are here to provide
safety to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. You should sit down with the
council. You should come down and drive over the roads. You should listen to
your officials in the department. You should establish the priorities for safety
reasons and not give $450,000 because of a commitment made by a minister to open
up some land development. As the mayor said: We are opening up land development.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the member's allotted time has expired.
Petitions.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity to give the House an update on the potty
situation down on the South Coast, in Ramea and Burgeo.
I was up four times last weeks in petitions and the prayer was that we would
have a proper washroom. In fact, we said we would be satisfied with a porta-potty
as a short-term solution, but I am afraid that a couple of porta-potties perched
out in the parking lot down in Burgeo and Ramea does not do much for providing
what we call an adequate health care service. That is exactly what they got, but
if this government thinks for one moment that this is acceptable and
satisfactory, they can think again.
The Minister of Transportation and Works responded to that prayer last week
only because of extreme pressure raised in this House and the fact that he and
his government looked like fools over this issue. Well, I will tell you, putting
two porta-potties down there as a temporary statement is not going to take away
your title as fools in this particular case. We cannot have people on the
Southwest Coast and visitors to this Island going to such a facility. Just
imagine people - there was snow up to your ankles this morning. These people go
to an unheated porta-potty on the side of a building in Burgeo and Ramea with no
soap in it, no water in it, and you expect that to be acceptable. Not on my life
and not on the life of anybody who has a stroke of decency in their body.
Absolutely not!
I say to the Minister of Transportation and Works: Get your act together,
send down the necessary manpower and the resources to do the job properly. We,
on the South Coast, are not second-class citizens. We are not cattle who you
drive out in the field whenever you feel like it. Give the people of the South
Coast the proper facilities they are entitled to. What a joke and what a
shameful action to put two porta-potties on two pieces of two-by-four down next
to a wharf and expect that to be acceptable. I do not know if anybody else in
this House or in this Province would expect such treatment, and the people that
I represent on the South Coast and the Member here for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune
will not stand for such treatment.
I say to the Minister of Transportation and Works: Get your act together and
do the proper, just, humane thing for these people who use this ferry service.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to move first reading of Bill 61.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act Respecting Mental Health Care and Treatment. (Bill 61)
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. minister
shall have leave to introduce said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a
bill, "An Act Respecting Mental Health Care and Treatment," carried.
(Bill 61)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 61 be now read a first
time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 61 be now read a
first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act Respecting Mental Health Care and Treatment. (Bill
61)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 61,
An Act Respecting Mental Health Care and Treatment,
has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 61 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to move to the seven bills that were given notice today, with leave. I
spoke to the Opposition House Leader, with leave, to move first reading so we
can circulate these bills, so I will move first reading of Bill 63,
An Act To
Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 3.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.
It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President
of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend
The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 3. (Bill 63)
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. minister
shall have leave to introduce said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 3,"
carried. (Bill 63)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 63,
An Act To Amend The
Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 3, be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the said bill be now
read a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 3. (Bill 63)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 63,
An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, No. 3 has
now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 63 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I now move for first reading of Bill 64,
An Act To Amend The Public Service
Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The
Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. the
minister shall have leave to introduce the said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To
Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions
Act," carried. (Bill 64)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 64,
An Act To Amend The
Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act, shall be now
read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 64 be now read
a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And
The Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 64)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 64,
An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act,
1991 And The Teachers' Pensions Act has now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 64 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move first reading of Bill 65,
An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The
Liquor Control Act. (Bill 65)
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. the
minister shall have leave to introduce said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To
Amend The Liquor Control Act," carried. (Bill 65)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 65,
An Act To Amend The
Liquor Control Act, be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the bill be now read
a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 65)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 65,
An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, has now
been read a first time.
When shall the bill be read a second time?
MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 65 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move first reading of Bill 66,
An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act,
1991 And The Human Rights Code.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human Rights Code. (Bill 66)
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. the
minister shall have leave to introduce said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
On motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce
a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The Human
Rights Code," carried. (Bill 66)
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that
Bill 66 shall be now read a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And The
Human Rights Code. (Bill 66)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 66,
An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991 And
The Human Rights Code, has now been read a first time.
When shall this bill be read a second time?
MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 66 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I now move first reading of Bill 67, which is
An Act To Amend The Highway
Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Justice and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 67)
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. the
minister shall have leave to introduce said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
On motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce
a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial
Offences Act," carried. (Bill 67)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 67 shall now be read a
first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the said bill be
read a first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The Provincial
Offences Act. (Bill 67)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 67,
An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act And The
Provincial Offences Act, has now been read a first time.
When shall this bill be read a second time?
MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 67 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I now move first reading of Bill 68,
An Act To Amend The Public Service
Collective Bargaining Act.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Human
Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 68)
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the hon. the
minister shall have leave to introduce said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
On motion, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining
Act," carried. (Bill 68)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 68 be now read a first
time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 68 be read a
first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining
Act. (Bill 68)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 68,
An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective
Bargaining Act, has now been read a first time.
When shall this bill be read a second time?
MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 68 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move first reading of Bill 69,
An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry
Collective Bargaining Act.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Human
Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 69)
Is it the pleasure of the Houses to adopt the motion that the hon. the
minister shall have leave to introduce said bill?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
On motion, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour, and Employment
to introduce a bill,
An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining
Act," carried. (Bill 69)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 69 be now read a first
time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 69 be read a
first time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining
Act. (Bill 69)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 69,
An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective
Bargaining Act, has now been read a first time.
When shall this bill be read a second time?
MR. SULLIVAN: On tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 69 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I now move Motion 3.
MR. SPEAKER: Motion 3 is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House
not adjourn today, Tuesday, December 5, at 5:30 o'clock p.m.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I now move Motion 4.
MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4 is, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House
not adjourn today, Tuesday, December 5, at 10:00 o'clock p.m.
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I now call for second reading of Bill 53,
An Act Respecting Municipal
Taxation -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I am sorry, I am going to call the other one first. They
are both related, in a sense, under Municipal Affairs.
I am going to call for second reading of Bill 52,
An Act Respecting The
Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property
Taxes.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 52,
An Act Respecting The
Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property
Taxes, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Assessment Of
Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes."
(Bill 52)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased for a few minutes to speak at second reading to Bill 52, the
Assessment Act, 2006. I am doing this on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, this bill consolidates and streamlines the statutory
requirements for property assessment that are presently contained in two acts
into one. Currently, the City of St. John's conducts its assessments under the
St. John's Assessment Act while assessments for all other municipalities are
conducted by the Municipal Assessment Agency under the Assessment Act.
The bill, developed at the request of, and in consultation with, the City of
St. John's and the Municipal Assessment Agency, ensures that the statutory
requirements for all future property assessments will be the same for those
conducted by the City of St. John's as those conducted by the Municipal
Assessment Agency.
Mr. Speaker, while most of the provisions of the bill are the same as those
outlined in one or both of the current acts, there are some specific provisions
that are new that I would like to highlight for the House.
The bill, Mr. Speaker, ensures for the first time that any municipality,
including the City of St. John's, which disagrees with evaluations of the
properties in its jurisdiction, will be able to appeal these evaluations to an
Assessment Appeal Commissioner. Under the current legislation, this right of
appeal is limited to property owners only. The bill extends the time period that
property owners have to file an appeal of their property evaluation from
twenty-one days under the current legislation, Mr. Speaker, to thirty days.
The current Assessment Act requires property owners in each of the
approximately 230 municipalities served by the Municipal Assessment Agency who
wish to appeal their assessments to file their appeals with their respective
municipality who is then required to notify the agency accordingly. Mr. Speaker,
this bill streamlines this process by requiring that all such appeals be filed
directly with the agency. This will serve to speed up the appeal process
significantly.
The bill extends from fifteen days under the current legislation to
forty-five days the period that property owners have to provide information
requested by an assessor that may be required for initial evaluation purposes or
for a review of the evaluation once an appeal has been filed.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, consolidating and streamlining the property
assessment process, is the fourth major rewrite and consolidation of municipal
legislation undertaken by the Department of Municipal Affairs in consultation
with our municipal stakeholders in recent years.
Honourable members will recall that a new Municipalities Act was enacted in
1999, a new Urban and Rural Planning Act in 2000, and a Municipal Elections Act
that consolidated and modernized the election provisions of four different
statutes, that being enacted in 2001. These past legislative initiatives, Mr.
Speaker, have resulted in this Province having some of the most progressive
municipal legislation in the country, and this bill will ensure this for
property assessment as well.
Mr. Speaker, with these few introductory comments at second reading, I now
invite my colleague, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, as critic, to
speak to second reading as well.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a privilege to speak on this particular bill, Bill 52,
An Act
Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of
Real Property Taxes.
One of the major contentions of the municipalities in this Province, and
primarily the small rural communities, is assessment value. The amount that is
being charged by the agency, as far as many of these smaller communities are
concerned, is excessive.
I know, when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs, many, many times the
smaller communities would complain about the fees that were levied on them; and,
as many of us would know, it is not getting any better for many of these smaller
rural communities - the town councils, communities councils, what have you - the
population base is continuing to dwindle. The amount of commercial property that
they would have in these communities is not improving, and numbers are
decreasing, so it makes it even more difficult for these councils to make ends
meet.
In many of the councils we have - and sometimes it is a fallacy in the
Province that the rural communities, the small rural communities, do not pay
their fair share when it comes to taxation. I want, for just a minute or two
before I talk to the bill, to really dispel that myth.
I know in the district of the Member for Bonavista North, in New-Wes-Valley,
for example, they charge some of the highest rates for water and sewer in the
Province. It is not cheap. It is probably over $500 that the community, people
served by that municipality, would pay for water and sewer. Many, many of the
communities in the Province, the smaller communities, charge over $400 a year
for water and sewer, so the amount of taxation - and that does not count, by the
way, the property tax. Even so, in many of the smaller communities the mill
rates are excessively high, properly twelve, thirteen, fourteen or fifteen, but
the value of their property is much lower than what you would find in a
community like Clarenville or you would find in Gander or Grand Falls or
certainly within the urban areas here, CBS and the City of Mount Pearl and the
capital city here.
The purpose of this act today is again to streamline, as the Acting Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs has already said, to bring in line the assessment
of the City of St. John's along with the assessment for all of the other
municipal councils across the Province.
Again, it is good to see, just as it was when, I guess, myself was minister,
or other people were Minister of Municipal Affairs, that you work with the
councils, because these are the people who are on the front line. It is the
people who are there every day who do the services, and they see that many, many
times it is cumbersome, a lot of red tape. They come to the department and ask
for streamlining.
This is a particular case where it is done again, where you have the City of
St. John's Municipal Assessment Act and the other municipalities across the
Province having different terms, different acts, but now they have decided that
they would have the one act for the City of St. John's and all the other
municipalities in the Province. That is really a good thing to have, where you
can have consistency and where you have the rules and regulations set out for
all jurisdictions, and they know that.
One of the other things, too, that I see here in the bill, it is again to
speed up the process and to help the property owners. Up to this particular
point, when the town or the community council did their assessments, if there
was some person in the community who thought that the assessed value was higher
than it should be, then they would go to their community council or the town
council, to the commissioner who would sit there, and appeal these assessments.
Now that this particular act has, in a sense, streamlined this and fast-tracked
the service where you do not have to do that any more, you can go directly to
the agency that is set up.
Also, as the minister indicated, the number of days that a person has to file
for an appeal has gone from twenty-one days to thirty, and that is good too. It
gives the person a little bit more time to be able to look at their particular
bill that they have, the assessment, and then be able to complete the defence
that they would have for it, and obviously be able to probably do a better deal.
Also, the bill extends from fifteen days under the current legislation to
forty-five days that the property owners have to provide information requested
by an assessor that may be required for initial evaluation purposes or a review
of an evaluation appeal that has been done. That is good, too. What it does, it
gives the particular person who is doing the appeal the time to put forth a case
whereby they can defend their particular proposition where they think that the
assessed value is too high and they want to be able to put that particular case
forward. So I think that, in itself, also is a positive move in this particular
piece of legislation.
Again, as the minister indicated, the piece of legislation does improve the
existing piece of legislation, and we are constantly doing that. There is no
piece of legislation that is ever written in any government that is stagnant and
does not move. There are always times when you bring in amendments, there are
always times when you bring in changes, because under circumstances when the law
was written and you look at it, there is a need to make changes and there is a
need to make revisions. The whole purpose of making a particular law or, in this
case changing the act, is so that the people who are in this particular
situation see some of the inconsistencies, see some red tape that is
unnecessary, whereby they can streamline the particular system here. That is
what they have done and that is what we have here in this particular piece of
legislation that is in front of the House today.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to say that I agree with many of the comments of my colleague from
Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune. We will obviously be voting for this bill. I think
having legislation that consolidates rather than increases language is the way
to go. Consolidation is also better for understanding by the ordinary citizen.
I am particularly glad, as my colleague said, but I would like to pick up on
the fact that most of the amendments are there for the benefit of the property
owner. I think that is to the good. I know that here in St. John's, in
particular, there have been times when people have noted that the twenty-one
days, for example, for appeal was too short. I am glad to see the government
recognizing some of the complaints that have been made by citizens over the past
few years.
With that, I say that is the end for today, for this one anyway, for this
bill.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs speaks
now he will close debate at second reading.
MS JONES: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for
Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to this bill today. Although it is
An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City Of St. John's, certainly -
AN HON. MEMBER: It is not only St. John's.
MS JONES: St. John's and other communities throughout the Province for
the assessment.
Mr. Speaker, municipal taxes affects all communities in Newfoundland and
Labrador. I think that as we see an eroding of the tax base throughout rural
communities in the Province it is becoming even more difficult for a lot of
these municipalities.
As you know, there has been a tremendous amount of out-migration throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador, especially in the recent number of years where people
have had to move out of communities in search of work and employment in other
provinces across Canada, or in some cases in the metropolitan areas within our
own Province. As a result of it, it has left small municipalities in
Newfoundland and Labrador in a very difficult position because they do not have
the financial ability to be able to maintain the services that many of them have
in their communities and they certainly do not have the financial ability to be
able to invest in new services that many of those municipalities need.
I remember just a couple of weeks ago on the front page of The Northern
Pen , there was an
article about the Town of Bird Cove. Now every member in
this Legislature is familiar with the Town of Bird Cove and certainly familiar
with its infamous mayor over the years, a lady by the name of Augustine Rumbolt,
who for many years led the charge, I say to hon. members, for municipalities on
the Northern Peninsula; led the charge towards government when we were in
government, had no problems whatsoever showing up on the doorstep of any
minister, any day of the week, for any issue that confronted their communities,
and I trust that she did the same with the opposite members in their time in
government.
Mr. Speaker, what I found very unusual when I was reading this
article was
that not only Augustine Rumbolt - who was one of the finest mayors in this
Province, who had led the charge for small, rural municipalities on the Northern
Peninsula - had to take her leave in Newfoundland and Labrador and move to Fort
McMurray, but in fact most of the council in that community had actually left
the region in search of employment; to the fact that one lone soldier was left,
one lone councillor, to hold down the fort and guard the community until such
time that they could rebuild it back up. I must say, it is an admirable task for
this individual and I certainly wished him well.
The point of my story is this. Right now the community of Bird Cove is in a
situation where they are unable to provide clean drinking water to many of the
people and residents in their community. I think they talked about forty
families who actually needed to have water and sewer connections in that
community at a cost of about $400,000. I say it is a small price to pay to put
municipal services in a community or to provide clean drinking water to
residents in any community in the Province. I want to urge the government to
look at those things very, very seriously because the answer will always be, we
have municipal operating funds, we have municipal grants, it is on a cost-shared
basis and communities can apply. Well, the reality is this, that many
communities cannot pay the portion that they are expected to pay.
I notice that the Member for St. Barbe is listening intently because I am
sure he agrees with what I am about to say; that in cases like this, Mr.
Speaker, there always need to be exceptions made. There need to be exceptions
made to ensure that communities that are non-viable in terms of having a tax
base to commit to twenty, thirty or forty per cent of infrastructure money, that
the ways and means be found within a government to provide those services to
them. I think, not in every case, there are communities throughout this Province
that have the ability to pay, but there are many that do not.
I know in my own district, in Black Tickle, a community that has no town
water and sewer services, the extreme cost to the taxpayers it would be to put a
water and sewer service in that community, and the cost of operating it, at that
point, would be too great for the community to actually carry it forward. What
did we do? We looked for a creative solution to a very serious problem. We put,
in Black Tickle, $1 million almost in infrastructure that would provide clean
drinking water at a central location in that community, because every single
water supply in that community, every pond, every lake, whatever was there, was
contaminated. It did not provide clean drinking water. Even with the
infrastructure, the pipe in the ground, the water was still not clean drinking
water.
In fact, what had to be done is, there had to be a water purification system
put in this community so that the water would go through a fully treated process
and, at the end of the day, when you went to get your water, it would be as
purified as any bottled water you are going to buy in a store.
Yes, that required an investment of the government of almost $1 million to do
that, but it needed to be done in order to provide drinking water in that
community. Since then, the community has had to provide for the cost of
operating this system, which is not cheap. It takes a great deal of electricity
to run that system, and hydro rates in rural communities on the Labrador Coast
under diesel operated plants are the highest electrical costs in the Province.
So it was not a cheap hydro bill to run this purification plant. Nor was it
cheap to provide for the chemicals and the materials and the filters and
everything that you needed to run this water purification system.
As a result, we, as a government, decided to make a grant to this community
on an annual basis. You, as a community, raise a portion of the money through
your sale of water and we, as a government, will give you a grant to pay for the
rest of it - and it worked fine. Do you know something? That grant was less than
$20,000 annually.
The first year the Williams' government took office, they decided they were
going to cancel that grant. They were not going to put $20,000 into a community
in Black Tickle, on the Coast of Labrador, to give them clean drinking water. I
was absolutely disturbed by the fact, Mr. Speaker, to the point that I actually
went to see the minister and to discuss it with him; and, upon realization of
how important that grant was in that community, the minister decided that they
would continue with it for that year only.
Last year, we had to go back again. Last year, they decided: We will not give
you the full $20,000 a year but we will give you a portion of that, and at the
end of the day it was a $15,000 grant.
Now, this year, I have on my desk a letter that was sent to the municipality
of Black Tickle from the government opposite, saying: We are no longer going to
provide a grant for this water system.
Mr. Speaker, this is a community with relatively little or no tax base. Let
me just give you some statistics. Seventy per cent of the people in that
community of the working population this year were left without enough hours or
weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. We alone, under job
creation initiatives and through securing money under that program, ended up
providing employment to sixty individuals in that community. Now, I do not have
to tell you what your income bracket is if you get your EI eligibility under a
make-work project. Your total EI income at the end of the day is going to be
about $100 a week, which means their full income for a month is going to be
about $400 a month. In some cases it is not as good as welfare, because you can
go to the department of social services and get $550 a month, so in some cases
they are even being supplemented with social services assistance. That is the
kind of an income level that you are looking at in a community like this, and
the government says: We cannot give you $10,000 or $15,000 a year.
It is the only cent of money, I want to say to hon. members, because you
probably do not even realize that, other than operating the school and the
clinic in that community, it is the only cent of money the government invested
in that community in three years. Not one year, not two years, but in three
years.
There was no money for roadwork or docks or any of that kind of stuff, no
money for literacy centres and community centres, none of that kind of stuff.
The only money going in there was a grant to this municipality to be able to
provide clean drinking water.
Now, if there is anyone out there in this Province who does not see a problem
with that, the fact that the government would withhold money from a small
community like this, then I think they need to shake their head again, because
it is a big problem and a huge problem, when we can look at expenditures of the
government that are seeing hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on social
events because they are hosing Premiers from across Canada, but yet you can say
no to these municipals.
I have a community in my district called Pinware which has no water and
sewer; none. We have tried year after year to look at how we can provide
services in this community so that people there can have drinking water. I am
not talking here today about municipalities building $6 million recreation
centres or municipalities putting up arts and culture centres or curling rinks
or recreation centres over here off Torbay Road for the government. Mr. Speaker,
I am talking about essential services in communities; not even roads and bridges
at that. I am talking about water and sewer, the basic essential service that
every single community in this Province should have today.
When I hear the government talk about, we have a deal on equalization, we
have billions of dollars signed off in gas revenue from the federal government,
but yet I do not see a willingness to deal with the real social problems that
exist in communities, there is something wrong with that. In fact, I think that
more people should be speaking out against it. In fact, there should be a lot
more people - maybe if they did speak up more and put their proposal across more
and take a shot across the bow of government every now and then, they might get
some results.
That is what happened out in Deer Lake. That is exactly what happened out in
Deer Lake. The government that bullies but doesn't like to be bullied got
roped into $4 million by the people of Deer Lake, didn't they? These people
did not give up. They needed a bridge in their community. They did not have the
money to build it. They knew it was a necessity. They were in a place where they
could capture the attention of the media and they were led by their own
municipality and their own mayor who said: We are not going to stand for this.
We are going to go out and we are going to take up the cause for the people of
Nicholsville. Even if they did not, the people in that community were more than
prepared to do it themselves. As a result, they got a positive response from the
government. So, don't tell me it does not work when you go out there and start
launching a protest for your cause and making your views known. That has to
happen more in this Province in small municipalities because they are the ones
who are dealing with the challenges.
I have talked to mayors and councillors in Baie Verte, in Springdale, in all
of these small communities, that are not just in Labrador but on the Island as
well, that are not just on the Northern Peninsula but they are on the Baie Verte
Peninsula and the Bonavista Peninsula. Their struggles are great. They have less
money to work with. They have more expenditure. They have infrastructure that is
old and they cannot pay for it. They do not have the grants from the government
that they could once depend upon. They cannot get involved in capital investment
and expenditure because they cannot raise the proportion of funds that they
sometimes need, and that is unfortunate.
Their big break comes when? With some gas tax money from the federal
government, negotiated through the Federation of Municipalities, I understand,
and the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Well, that is great. We
are getting the gas tax money, a portion of it going back into the rural
communities, as it should, I say to you. Now we have a list of criteria that
goes with all of that, criteria, Mr. Speaker, that does not give a lot of these
towns the flexibility that they need to make the investments that they want. It
is either one way or the other. It is either the money is allocated for your
town and you make the decision on how you want to invest it. I think that is the
way it should be, allowing them to invest in the infrastructure and the capital
needs that are important to them and their community.
The other issue, the amount of money that was carved off the top by Municipal
Affairs for waste management in the Province, let's look at that. Where is
that money going to go? Where are those millions of dollars that were carved off
the top by the provincial government, through the Department of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs, where is that money going to go? Am I going to get the two
waste management disposal sites that need to be built in my district? Is the
money going to come out of that pot to do that? I would like to know, because
the study has been done since 2003. The studies were completed since 2003. The
plan was laid out and we have been waiting for three years for the government to
address the problem in terms of building the waste disposal sites that need to
be built. Are those two on the list?
What else is on the list? I understand Corner Brook might be on the list. I
understand St. John's might be on the list. Maybe the member could let me
know. Perhaps his district is going to get some money out of this. I do not
know. Where is that money going to? Is it going to go to look after the waste
management needs in the City of St. John's and the City of Corner Brook, or is
it going to be used to look after the waste management needs in rural
communities around this Province which do not have the tax base and do not have
the investment dollars to address those problems? I would like to know the
answer to that.
I went to the Federation of Municipalities meeting for a day. I did not get
to stay for the whole weekend. I was there for a day, so I did not get to hear
the minister do his address. I do not know, maybe he did say we are going to put
some of that money up in Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair for sure. I do not think
he did. I never saw the press release on it, but you know it is possible. He
could be going to do that. I certainly never heard them say where they are going
to invest any of that money. I would like to know that, because that money was
signed off on behalf of all the municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Therefore, they should have free access to be able to have that money invested
in their communities and not see $10 million, $15 million or $20 million of it
carved right off the top, right away, to go into a waste management site in the
City of St. John's, where they have a tax base that can ill afford to
contribute to a lot of those things on their own. I have concerns about that.
I would like to have an answer to that as soon as the minister gets an
opportunity. Maybe in third reading of the bill, or when he closes second
reading on the bill, he might want to get up and give me some answers to that,
what he is going to do with that portion of the money.
The other thing I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, is how much of the money
that was signed off in the federal-provincial agreement this year between the
federal government and the provincial government on municipal infrastructure was
actually committed and spent. I would like to know the answer to that because I
know of a number of projects that were committed to by the Department of
Municipal Affairs for municipalities around the Province, that when they got
their letter and realized they had to contribute 30 per cent or 40 per cent
towards this project, they could not accept it. They did not have the money to
accept it. The bank would not give them a loan. They had no way to finance it.
They had to go back to the Province and say: Sorry, I cannot accept this money
to do the water and sewer at this time in my community. That happened in a lot
of municipalities. I would like to know how much of that money at the end of the
day, that was committed, got spent? How much of it can be carried over to next
year's budget and when are monies going to be made available again to those
municipalities?
I know the minister, when he gets in Committee, will want to get up and give
me the answers to all of these questions because he is a very intelligent
minister, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. He does his homework. I know that, because
I was his critic when he was the Minister of Health. He does his homework and I
know that right there on his desk, at his fingertips, he has the answers to all
of these questions for me, so I will be waiting for him to stand up.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes when people apply to the Department of Municipal
Affairs for money to do these things in their communities, they apply because
there is a need, and there is an extreme need - not a want, but a need - and
when they apply they expect that the government will look at that seriously and
be able to do whatever they can to commit those funds to their towns to deal
with the problems that they have.
I ran into a situation, actually, just a few weeks ago, a municipality in my
district that had a sewage backup in their town, and this municipality has an
operating budget of less than $100,000 a year, very small town. They have a lot
of overhead, a lot of expenses. They have part-time staff and they try and make
things work. Anyway, you run into a problem, you get into a situation where you
have a sewage backup in your community and all of a sudden it requires $10,000,
$15,000, $20,000, if you are lucky; if you are not lucky, it could be up to
$70,000 or $80,000 to fix this problem. The first thing they did was, they
called up the engineer in the Department of Municipal Affairs and told them
their problem. What can I do? Well, you go talk to your own engineer and get a
letter off to us, and do this and do that. They do all of those things. They
follow process. That is one thing about municipal leaders and councillors out
there in a lot of those communities, they follow the process. They follow the
process that government puts in place, and they do so in good faith.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
I remind the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that her time
for speaking has expired.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
May I have leave to clue up?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member, by leave.
MS JONES: I want to thank the Government House Leader for the courtesy of
giving me the time I need to clue up.
The situation I was getting to is this: They make an application to the
Department of Municipal Affairs to fix this sewage backup. They are under the
understanding that they are going to get $10,000 to $12,000 to fix what is a
$15,000 problem. The town itself can raise the $3,000, which they do, and once
they send their bills into the Department of Municipal Affairs they find out
they are only going to get $7,000.
Now, that puts a lot of stress on a municipality, on a mayor and on a
councillor, because not only are they responsible for servicing the people in
that community and maintaining those services the best way they can, but they
also have to be fiscally prudent and responsible to the municipal taxpayers. So,
when you get a commitment from government that says we will pay this amount and
then, at the end of the day, because of technicalities, they say we are only
going to pay half of that, or 50 per cent or 60 per cent of it, it leaves them
in a very difficult situation.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks now, but the point I was
trying to make, and I am sure all members heard it and listened attentively, is
that more has to be done for rural municipalities in this Province because,
unlike the urban and city councils, they do not have the tax base upon which to
draw to do that important work that they need to do in their communities.
I ask that the Minister of Finance, as he is listening attentively to me
today, that he make sure in his budget process this year that he makes more
money available to municipalities and rural municipalities in this Province. I
am sure you, Mr. Speaker, being the Member for Bonavista South, would certainly
agree with that comment.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
If the hon. the Acting Minister of Municipal Affairs speaks now, he will
close the debate on second reading.
The hon. the Acting Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank members opposite, the critic, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune,
and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, obviously two individuals
living in rural areas of our Province who are well in tune with municipal issues
and how it affects our citizens on a day-to-day basis.
Mr. Speaker, the act is the Assessment Act, 2006, and, as the former minister
indicated, we are talking about
an act which consolidates present legislation
and helps streamline present legislation so that there can be an effective
administration of assessment in our communities, and in this case in the Capital
City of St. John's. From that point view, Mr. Speaker, that is the legislation
that we are dealing with today. I thank hon. members for their commentary, and
largely their endorsement.
With those few comments, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 52, an
Assessment Act, 2006.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 52,
An Act Respecting The
Assessment Of Real Property For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property
Taxes, be now read a second time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property For The
Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes. (Bill 52)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Assessment Of Real Property
For The Purpose Of The Imposition Of Real Property Taxes," read a second
time, ordered to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 52)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I now call second reading of Bill 53, the
City of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 53,
An Act Respecting
Municipal Taxation In The City Of St. John's, be now read a second time.
On motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Municipal
Taxation In The City Of St. John's." (Bill 53)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this, too, is being presented on behalf of my colleague, the
Minister of Municipal Affairs.
Bill 53 is a bill which outlines the taxation authority for the City of St.
John's. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the property assessment authority, the St.
John's Assessment Act also contains the city's taxation powers. Since this
act is being repealed by the Assessment Act, 2006, that we just debated, it is
necessary to reconstitute taxation powers in a new act.
Mr. Speaker, the taxation authority outlined in this bill is the same as that
in the St. John's Assessment Act, with the exception of three old taxing
authorities which have been deleted at the city's request. Mr. Speaker, the
deleted authorities from the current legislation provide authority for
imposition of a fuel oil tax, a cable insulation tax, and an entertainment tax.
These taxing authorities date back many years and, with the exception of a very
limited application of the entertainment tax a number of years ago, have never
been exercised. In the city's view, Mr. Speaker, these taxes will never be
imposed and consequently they are not included in this bill.
Again, Mr. Speaker, with those few introductory comments at second reading, I
now invite members opposite to make a few comments of their own.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, this particular bill that we are talking about here is of a necessity
because, as the minister said, we just did Bill 52 which dealt with the St. John's
Assessment. Since the Assessment Act that is in the City of St. John's also
has taxation powers, and because the old act was repealed, as the minister said,
and we just did a new one, we have to make sure that those taxing powers are in
the new act.
There are a couple of exceptions there that were in the old act, that have
been itemized here and obviously have to be taken out, because once the city
council, in this particular case, as the minister already said, does not have
imposition of a fuel tax or a cable installation tax or an entertainment tax,
since these particular taxes are practically impossible to impose, and if they
were imposed - not impossible to impose, but if they are imposed it is
impossible to be able to get taxes, so they are not included in it. This, again,
as the minister has already said, is a matter of streamlining taxation for the
city.
Since this is a taxation bill, municipal taxing in the City of St. John's,
I would like to again, as the critic, continue just for a minute or two, not to
prolong it for a long time, the ideas that were presented earlier by the Member
for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
In the Province today, talking about clean drinking water; very, very
important. I have a municipality in one of the areas that I represent where it
is practically impossible for the people to even get a bath or a shower. Once
they do, in many, many cases the bottom of the bathtub is covered with mud and
particles. Yet these particular people pay close to $400 a year for that
particular service. Obviously, there are ways that we have to find a solution to
it. I am working with the minster in that particular case to find the most
economical way, but yet be able to address the problem so that the people could
have good drinking water in the community.
I remember a few years ago, when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs, one of
the things that we had to deal with at that time was THMs. It was a real
problem, and - do you know what? - it is still a real problem. There are a lot
of communities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that have THMs in
their water. If you were to go to Municipality Affairs to the Water Management
Resources there, you would find that there are probably more than 100 who still
need to have the improvements made to their drinking water so that they can make
the Canadian standards that apply.
When I was in Municipal Affairs, one of the things we did was to give to the
communities. I think we spent something like $15 million or more. They were
primarily smaller communities where we funded 100 per cent provincial dollars up
to $100,000 to put in new chlorination plants or to improve the chlorination
systems that they already had. Under the present government, it is my
understanding, that particular program is not in place anymore, but there are
other programs that no doubt would try to complement it. I do not know if there
are100 per cent programs that these communities can avail of.
In many of these smaller communities, as has already been said - and many of
the members on both sides of the House represent rural communities, small
communities. As I was saying earlier, they pay $600, $700 or $800 a year or more
into taxation in the communities, but when there is no real property they can
assess, it is very, very difficult for them to make ends meet. That is why I
think, after having some opportunity to do it - I never had an opportunity to
implement it, never had time to do it - I think that the Municipal Operating
Grants should be increased for the small municipalities. Many of the urban
communities can probably do with a bit less, the larger cities like St. John's
and Mount Pearl with the great industrial parks, and the larger communities that
we have. Many of the smaller communities do not have that. The larger urban
centres like Grand Falls and Gander, they do serve many of the smaller
communities from the Baie Verte Peninsula, the La Scie area and over Harbour
Breton way. These municipalities do enjoy the benefits of the business that many
of the smaller municipalities bring to them and they enjoy the business taxation
as a result of it.
To make it on a more even keel, I think there should be something done for
many of the smaller communities that can address the needs that exist, because
there are real needs. There is no doubt about it. As I said, many of us
represent small, rural communities and rural, rural. Many of the communities
that I represent - there are rural communities and then there are remote rural
communities and some of us even represent remote rural communities. It is a real
problem. Many, many times these small municipalities see even the Federation of
Municipalities probably not championing their cause in some ways. Even though it
might be done, they do not see it as their cause being championed and many times
feel that they have nowhere to go.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would conclude my remarks on this particular piece
of legislation. As I said, it is minor but yet important because to streamline
and consolidate services for the council makes it even more efficient for that
operation to work.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
If the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs speaks now, he will close
the debate on Bill 53.
The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I thank my colleague for his comments. I simply wish to conclude
debate and move second reading of Bill 53,
An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation
In The City of St. John's.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 53,
An Act
Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City of St. John's, be now read a second
time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City of St.
John's. (Bill 53)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 53 has now been read a second time. When shall this
bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. SULLIVAN: Presently, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Presently.
On motion, a bill, "
An Act Respecting Municipal Taxation In The City of
St. John's," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the
Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 53).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I now call second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The Labour Relations
Act, Bill 55.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 55,
An Act To Amend The
Labour Relations Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations
Act." (Bill 55)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am delighted today to stand and bring forward a bill seeking amendments to
the Labour Relations Act, that is aimed at improving the overall efficiency and
effectiveness of this Province's Labour Relations Board.
Members will recall that in 2004 the Labour Relations Board released a public
discussion paper with respect to possible amendments to the legislation and the
rules of procedure which govern the board's activities. Since that time, Mr.
Speaker, extensive stakeholder consultations were conducted with the employer
and labour groups, and from the outset valuable feedback and input from the
stakeholders has been integrated into this process.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, to the direct consultation, a detailed review of
the legislation and rules of procedure that apply to other boards of Canada has
been undertaken, and consideration of recent court rulings also impacting the
jurisdiction of the board has being conducted.
Mr. Speaker, in a followup to this process, the Labour Relations Board
submitted a proposal to government recommending a variety of changes to
provincial labour legislation to make it a more efficient labour tribunal and to
better articulate its jurisdiction in keeping with the best practices
nationally.
Mr. Speaker, government has reviewed the board's proposed amendments to the
Labour Relations Act and it is recommending endorsement of the proposed changes.
These changes to the act represent, by the way, a consensus position that has
been achieved between all stakeholders. We are very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that
the Labour Relations Board, government, the employers' council and the
Federation of Labour have worked together so effectively to advance these
important amendments.
Mr. Speaker, these proposed amendments, I think members will agree, are
proactive and positive steps that will provide the Labour Relations Board with
needed enhancements to improve its efficiency, which in turn will modernize our
labour legislation in a manner that is consistent with that of other Canadian
jurisdictions and also with the decisions of the courts.
Mr. Speaker, this has come together, as a matter of fact, because of the
co-operation and the collaboration between these groups. It is a consensus
document. It is something about modernizing the Labour Relations Act, which is
overdue, and I am pleased to bring forward these amendments today on behalf of
all stakeholders.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity to rise in second reading on this particular
bill, Bill 55, concerning the Labour Relations Act. We will be supportive of
this bill. As the minister says, from time to time you have to do some
housework, and that includes tidying up. Often you find, once you have made a
law and you start to implement it, over time you find little pieces about it
that do not deal with every situation that you require. Of course, you get
feedback from the institutions involved - in this case, the Labour Relations
Board. They tell you where you should or should not go and how to improve it.
That is what we see here as a part of this.
I did note - I do not know if this is an appropriate forum to talk about it -
in the local media, I believe it was yesterday, a case where the Labour
Relations Board was not handled very gently by a Justice of the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to how a certain matter was dealt with
involving a certain labour union in this Province. I do believe it was CUPE. I
think the decision in that particular case, of the Justice, was: Albeit, the
board may have made the proper decision back when, they failed in their duty, or
the chairperson failed in his duty, whatever - I think he specifically singled
out, according to the media, that it was a lapse on the part of the chairperson
in question, that he did not do what he ought to have done. There was a six-year
delay between the time when the decision was made, and the reasons for the
decision were actually given to the parties involved, albeit the parties
involved had requested the information. It got to be a point where it was a moot
point. It went on for so long and the chairperson had moved on and whatever. It
goes to show again that we have to constantly be on top of situations when we
have agencies doing things in this Province, to see if they are doing it right.
I do not know if this particular bill - I doubt it - at all addresses the
situation. I have not had, quite frankly, an opportunity to look at the act to
see if there is anything built into our Labour Relations Act at the present time
which says: thou shalt provide reasons within a specified period of time,
because it certainly was not done in that case. The Justice in that case said it
was deserving of a remedy. In fact, the remedy was, I do believe, the Labour
Relations Board was ordered to pay the legal fees for everybody involved; for
CUPE, I believe the City of St. John's was involved. I can just imagine what
six years of legal fees are going to come to. We will probably be back here, I
say to the Minister of Finance, with another supplementary supply bill or a
special warrant because there is no doubt about it, once that comes in there is
going to be a fairly substantial bill to this government. It comes down of
course to, again, the board doing what it was supposed to have done.
I notice there is a clause in here which would amend the Act to provide that
the appointment of a member of the board continues until he or she is
reappointed or replaced. That certainly did not help the situation we had here
where the board moved on and there was not, apparently, a replacement in a
sufficient period of time and so on. That is important stuff.
I will not get into, today, who gets appointed to those boards, because, of
course, we have had lots of discussions in this House as to who goes there and
how they go there. In most cases, these people are eminently qualified to be
there on these boards and so on. Usually, a list of names come forward and the
minister makes a recommendation to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and it
would get made accordingly.
There was definitely a faux pas here somewhere, according to the Justice of
the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, and this Province is going to be
set back a lot of bucks because of it. I do not know what the minister needs to
do in terms of amending the legislation or putting policies and safeguards in
place to make sure that does not happen again because it has happened on both
watches, this incident. If we go back six years, I think that takes in two
Administrations. It started back in the former Administration and a decision
came down on the current Administration. So, there is enough blame to go all the
way around in terms of what happened or did not happen, if you want to look at
it politically, which is not the right way to look at it.
What I am suggesting here is we need to make sure that our laws are
up-to-date enough to ensure that this type of situation does not happen again. I
look forward in the future - and I will in fact make a special request to the
minister in due course because I would like to know what that decision, that
mistake and that delay is going to cost this Province. It is very serious when
you have a union waiting six years for a decision in a city that has lawyers
engaged; and we wait six years. I am sure the public would like to know what it
is going to cost the Province for that mistake. We know what it costs for fur
coats and all that kind of stuff, and conferences that we host. This is another
example of maybe there was a bit of wastage here that should not have been.
We look forward to that information, I say to the minister, but in terms of
your attempts here to clean up and clean house and do a bit of housekeeping here
in this particular Bill