Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 13 December 2010 (46th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLVI No. 48)
2010-12-13
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 13, 2010 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVI No. 48
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
Admit visitors.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Today we welcome the following members' statements: the hon.
Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; the hon. Member for
the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. Member for the District of
Topsail; and, the hon. Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.
The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Cloud River
Academy Girls Volleyball Team from Roddickton on their gold medal victory at the
2A Provincial Volleyball Games that took place in Middle Arm on December 3 and
After an undefeated tournament they lost in the first match of the final, but
won the last two matches to take the championship against Gill Memorial Academy
of Musgrave Harbour. It was the team's fourth year provincial victory. The
coach, Rhonda Martin, is to be congratulated for dedicating her time and efforts
to these girls and to the sport of volleyball.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in
congratulating Clara Humby, Robyn Brenton, Billie Brown, Terri Simms, Brittany
Randell, Rebecca Randell, Taralee Ropson, Abby Budden, Lorraine Mitchell, Terry
Pittman, Chantel Newman, Ocean Ellsworth, and coach Rhonda Martin, and wish them
well in future competitions.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la
Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to deliver accolades to Ms Georgina Ollerhead
of Harbour Breton.
On June 5 of this year, Ms Ollerhead was recognized by the Newfoundland and
Labrador Minor Hockey Association with its 2010 Meritorious Award for the
Central Region, in recognition of her outstanding service and dedication to
minor hockey in Harbour Breton.
Ms Ollerhead has been active with the league for over fifteen years, serving
as secretary, treasurer and president. She has been instrumental in ensuring the
league's success and always gives 110 per cent to everything she takes on. Very
well respected by her colleagues, Ms Ollerhead exemplifies what it means to be a
volunteer.
It is not just minor hockey where you will see this active lady. She is also
involved with the Lion's Club, Chair of the local Children's Wish Foundation,
Chair of the Remembrance Day service, and Chair of the school council for King
Academy, just to name a few.
I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in recognizing the volunteer
efforts of Ms Georgina Ollerhead. We look forward to her continued commitment
and dedication to helping others for years to come.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.
MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Rotary Club of Avalon
Northeast. This club, which serves the Towns of Conception Bay South and
Paradise, was founded in 1989 and currently has a membership of forty men and
women.
As a result of its collective efforts this dedicated group has earned a
reputation of doing more than expected from a club of its size. The organization
has earned recognition from Rotary International, receiving two "Significant
Achievement Awards" due to its role in developing two major community projects,
namely the Topsail Beach Rotary Park and the Rotary Paradise Youth and Community
Centre.
Mr. Speaker, the club provides local community with a variety of projects as
well including high school scholarships, junior achievement, and DARE programs
along with a monthly lifestyle clinic. The club's current initiative in
partnership with the Manuels River Natural Heritage Society is the construction
of a modern, multi-million dollar education and visitor centre at Manuels River
Linear Park.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Rotary
Club of Avalon Northeast and its continued efforts and contribution to our
communities.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Provincial Electoral
District Scholarship winners for 2010. The Province awards approximately 200
high school graduates annually.
It takes a lot of hard work and dedication to achieve a high school diploma.
These graduates are to be acknowledged and congratulated on their commitment
over the past several years. They are now prepared to pursue their
post-secondary studies knowing that they possess the skills and knowledge that a
secondary education offers them. These students are considered to be ranked
among the top of their graduating classes and have been awarded the provincial
scholarship in recognition of this achievement.
I would like to congratulate in particular Brian Peach, Jennifer Smith,
Lindsay Collins, Colin Dominic, and Benjamin Riche of O'Donel High School, and
Kaitlin Quinlan and Nicole Wheeler of Mount Pearl Senior High.
I would also like to congratulate Ashley Linehan of Mount Pearl Senior High
School, and Amy O'Driscoll and Tyler Smith of O'Donel High School for being
awarded the Centenary for Responsible Government Scholarship.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating all
of the recipients of the Provincial Electoral District Scholarship, and wish
them all the best for success in the years to come.
Thank you.
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!
MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 2009, the provincial government
contracted Conestoga Rovers Limited to conduct soil testing in the Town of
Buchans, as a result of environmental concerns arising from the former Abitibi
mine site. The testing identified elevated levels of heavy metals in some of the
samples, and the provincial government made a commitment to address the
immediate health concerns of the people.
I am pleased to rise today, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. Charlene
Johnson, Minister of Environment and Conservation, and report that the
provincial government has honoured its commitment to Buchans. We have concluded
the work on the two major sources of contamination in the town the tailings
spill area and the Mucky Ditch. This ditch, which flows from the tailings spill
area through and under the town, was identified as a place of concern.
Furthermore, based on a feasibility study, we selected the cap-in-place option
for the tailings spill area, as it met the objective of protecting human health
and the environment in the most feasible manner.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial government held two public meetings in Buchans to
inform the people of our findings and to assure them that we would act upon
their concerns. Subsequently, in Budget 2010, we committed $9 million for
projects to address the two main source areas that were contributing to the lead
in soil levels in Buchans. Along with the capping of the tailings spill area and
remediation of the Mucky Ditch by the Department of Environment and
Conservation, the rehabilitation of the tailings dams and capping of exposed
tailings by the Department of Natural Resources is also ongoing.
The provincial government has made blood lead testing available for any
concerned residents through the Central Health Authority. Furthermore, Mr.
Speaker, the department placed a mobile air quality monitoring trailer near the
remediation activities in Buchans to monitor total and fine particulate during
the project. This information was made available on our Web site in an effort to
keep residents informed.
Our government has been proactive and responsive to the needs of the people
of Buchans, Mr. Speaker. The completion of this project is a testimony to the
great emphasis we place on our environment and the remediation of areas of
concern.
The provincial government will continue to promote a sustainable environment
and healthy ecosystems to meet the social, physical, cultural, and economic
needs of our people.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement and to say
that I know this is an issue that was presented to the Official Opposition by
residents of the area. We are very pleased to know that when government made a
commitment, now that commitment has been honoured; and to know that the two main
areas - the tailings spill area and the Mucky Ditch area - have been, I guess,
done to the satisfaction of the people because, as the minister said, there were
public meetings held and those people were kept informed.
Another issue I am glad to see in this statement is with regard to the blood
lead testing, because that was an issue that was also brought forward at that
particular time. It is good to see any improvements when it comes to our
environment.
Mr. Speaker, as good as this statement is, we encourage government. We praise
them for the work they have done here and encourage them on other projects in
the future to proceed the same way. We know that there are concerns with regard
to the Vale site, also possibly with the Abitibi site. So, we are just asking
government to continue with this approach and see that all areas that are
contaminated in our Province end with a successful conclusion as we hope this
one will turn out to be.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for a copy of the statement. I am very glad to see
that the work in Buchans has been brought to a completion. It was, obviously,
work that had to be done for the health of the people and the environment in the
Town of Buchans. It took a long time for that damage to happen, and, finally, in
a relatively short period of time, it has been cleaned up. I think that is very
good, and I hope that it will be the end of the negative impacts, or the
potential negative impacts on the health of the Buchans residents.
I do have a concern, though; that we continue in this Province to make
decisions environmentally that could have ramifications down the road, such as
Duck Pond, the use of Duck Pond as a tailings area and the use of Sandy Pond.
Because both of these ponds do feed into a wider ecological system, we cannot be
sure that in fifty years time we are not going to have problems in these areas
as well.
So, I would encourage the Department of Environment and Conservation, Mr.
Speaker, to be more judicious in decisions that it is making about tailings.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to inform the
public and members present of the success of the Fisheries Technology and New
Opportunities Program. There has been an excellent response to the program from
the fishing industry and its partners. This initiative is helping to facilitate
fishing industry research and development.
Since its launch in the spring of 2007, it has generated a total of $21.4
million for fishing industry research and development in the Province of more
than three times the amount invested by our government. A total of 118
industry-driven projects have been funded since the program was created.
Investment in the program has leveraged an additional $16.3 million from
industry and its partners.
I would like to thank our partners in the industry who have worked with us on
so many of these projects, including: the Fish, Food and Allied Workers; the
Association of Seafood Producers; Seafood Producers of Newfoundland and
Labrador; and the Marine Institute.
The program has been a key component of many developments that have taken in
place in Newfoundland and Labrador's fishing industry. It has funded projects
related to energy efficiency, safety, seafood marketing, and product
development. Using this program, the industry has been able to implement
innovative projects that are leading to a more competitive fishing industry in
the global marketplace.
One of the key areas supported under the program has been energy efficiency
projects. As energy efficiency has become an increasingly important aspect of a
more competitive and environmentally-friendly fishing industry, the program has
contributed approximately $660,000 to help reduce energy costs and reduce the
carbon footprint of the industry.
Mr. Speaker, our government is working with industry to build a future that
is bright for young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We have funded projects
that will change the way our industry works and enhance our reputation as a
global leader in fisheries, oceans, and marine research and development.
The Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program is a key provincial
component of the Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy. Approximately $140 million
has been committed to this strategy in an effort to revitalize the Province's
fishing industry. Building on the existing success of ongoing research and
development, my department will continue to partner with the private sector and
fishing industry stakeholders to continue to grow and develop the industry.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First, I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement. Certainly, research and development is very important to any
industry, and the fishing industry would be no different and no exception for
sure. Any improvements in energy efficiency, safety, and marketing are always
good to see as well. In this day and age, emphasis on cutting all costs,
especially energy costs, is welcomed by the industry, particularly the
harvesters.
It is encouraging to see government work with the industry on this
initiative, and it is important that government work in partnership with key
players in all industries and all aspects of the fishing industry in particular.
We saw in the MOU process that key stakeholders were kind of omitted; thereby,
they felt that they have been left out and have not had the input that they
could have had into that particular process.
It is also important that government needs to look at rebuilding our
industry, not just from a technology aspect, but from all areas, including
marketing, certainly, which needs to be fast-tracked if we are going to be able
to compete globally with our products. Building our entire fishing industry is
more than about improving technology, but it is a question of the resource
itself and ensuring that it remains sustainable over the years.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is a very worthwhile initiative, it has clearly been
welcomed by those in the industry, but government must ensure that they do more
to make sure that we build our industry. There are a lot of people who feel that
it has been neglected by this government, in terms of the input necessary, so we
would encourage the government to continue to look at the fishing industry for
sure.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. It is good,
Mr. Speaker, to see the projects that the minister has spoken about and the
efforts that have been made in the fishing industry, especially the project
around energy efficiency because this is something that is going to be important
to our industry as it continues to grow in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: The minister also talks about a project with regard to
seafood marketing. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a full plan, a full strategy,
in place with regard to seafood marketing. Now, we are all awaiting with bated
breath, the MOU, and I am assuming that this is going to be included in the MOU,
but this is one of the most long-awaited pieces of paper and documents that we
have had in this House since I have been sitting here.
We have great expectations because of the length of time that it is taking,
Mr. Speaker. I hope that the length of time is going to be an indication of how
good this MOU is going to be, because, as much as we are in the money because of
the oil industry in this Province, the backbone of this Province has been and
will continue to be the fishery. If we do not have that backbone strengthened,
then I fear to think of where we will be in fifty years' time.
I really ask the minister to work hard with the partners that they are
working with to get this MOU in place in the latest time that he has now given
us, in the New Year. I would love to see a committed date and a real promise
that that date will be met.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Some of Newfoundland and Labrador's top innovators and exporters recently
took centre stage at the provincial government's annual Export and Innovation
Awards.
Through the Export and Innovation Awards, the provincial government showcases
prominent innovators and exporters, and celebrates their accomplishments and
successes. The event, which was attended by upwards of 200 individuals, captured
the forward-looking nature of a business community whose vision is focused on
exporting to international markets.
Ocean Choice International was named Exporter of the Year, while Grand
Bank-based Dynamic Air Shelters and Memorial University's Distance Education and
Learning Technologies were respectively presented with the Innovation in
Business and Distinction in Innovation Awards. These awards carry significant
value for winners.
Camouflage Software, a previous winner, described the awards as "bolstering
the company's courage and giving it the energy required to make repeated
attempts, perform endless demonstrations, and to succeed in convincing clients
of the value of its software."
Mr. Speaker, while there were three winners named, many others were equally
as deserving. Small- and medium-sized businesses and organizations are a focal
point for the positive activity being experienced in the Province and have been
a force in the diversification of the Province's business community.
As a government, we are a champion of business growth. A key conduit to
encouraging business growth is supporting local businesses to become successful
innovators and exporters.
In the coming months, the provincial government will be leveraging
relationships through the Province's trade alliance with the Southeastern United
States. Through this relationship, we will work with our network of women-owned
businesses to help them sell their products and services to larger corporations
and public organizations which have implemented diversity policies.
The provincial government, in collaboration with local businesses and
regional partners, is also in the early stages of exploring export opportunities
in the vast markets of India, China, and Brazil. Given the size and interest in
these markets, officials are carefully identifying parameters for market entry,
key contacts, and partnership opportunities.
With a business community that is thinking global, the provincial government
additionally intends to sit down with business representatives in the new year
to proactively discuss emerging opportunities in markets and how we can assist
turning those opportunities into reality.
By facilitating new export activity, the provincial government is supporting
the development of a vibrant business community and setting the stage for even
greater celebrations at future export and innovation awards.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.
I would like to acknowledge the winners of the awards that were presented:
Ocean Choice International, Dynamic Air Shelters, and Memorial University's
Distance Education and Learning Technologies program. It is great to see. As
testimony by previous winners, it is very important in terms of boosting their
confidence and it certainly looks good on their resumes and so on. So it is a
good initiative, and I would commend the minister for the same.
It is good to see the network of women-owned businesses as well, something
that is being looked at and obviously exploring opportunities in the vast
markets of India, China, and Brazil. There are a lot of global opportunities
there as well. Small- and medium-sized businesses make up a large portion of our
exporting and when we look at the Canadian statistics, we know that the number
of Canadian companies that have fewer than 100 employees are somewhere around 98
per cent, and yet they make up more than 45 per cent of the GDP. Being able to
support the small businesses to get through the growing pains and from the
development stage to the exporting stage is certainly good. It is good to see
those recognitions here today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.
I am very pleased to join with the other two parties in the House in
congratulating Ocean Choice International, Dynamic Air Shelters, and Memorial's
Distance Education and Learning Technologies. I am particularly pleased to see
Ocean Choice International there; it goes to what I was saying to the Minister
of Fisheries earlier. I think we have so much more potential in the whole area
of the fishery that I would like to see this built on, obviously.
The other thing that is so good is the concentration on small- and
medium-sized businesses because they really are, again, part of the whole basis
of our economy. We know the contribution that small- and medium-sized businesses
make to an economy, both in terms of employment, there may be small numbers in
each place but the small numbers build up, and in terms of the actual economy
through the sale of exports that are going on.
I am very pleased with the whole thing on the concentration on the network of
women-owned businesses. We have heard about this before, and I am glad to see
that it is being strengthened and continuing. I would encourage the minister,
not because of anything she has not done, she has not been in the position long
enough, but encourage her because of some experiences I have heard of, to make
sure that the programs - especially for women-owned businesses - are not so
rigid, that sometimes things that are designed by a group of women themselves
cannot find funding. There are some loopholes in supporting women who are into,
especially craft businesses in trying to make international connections. That is
something that I would be happy to speak to the minister about at another time.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
The Chair would like to recognize a couple of people who are visiting the
House of Assembly today. Sitting in the Speaker's gallery is a former Member of
the House of Assembly and a long-time Cabinet Minister, Mr. Tom Hickey.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to recognize Mayor Harold Murphy,
from the Town of Parkers Cove in the District of Burin-Placentia West.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Leader of the Opposition.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is going to be the most expensive power in Eastern
Canada. Ratepayers here will pay well over 100 per cent more for electricity.
My question today concerns industrial users and the cost of energy to
business. I will quote something the Premier is quite familiar with, " can
the Premier explain how we can ever use our expensive power as an incentive for
new businesses to come to Newfoundland and Labrador to create jobs, and
purchase goods and services from our companies, when it is much cheaper, in
fact, for them to buy their power in Quebec, on the other side of the border?"
That is a question that former Premier Williams posed to then Premier Grimes
back in 2002, and it is just as apt today when it comes to the Muskrat Falls
deal.
I ask the Premier: How are you going to make it happen, Premier? How are you
going to grow our economy while using the most expensive power in Eastern
Canada?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most fundamental essentials in growing your economy
is that you have energy to sell to industrial customers. Mr. Speaker, we will
not be able to maintain the current customers in our Province if we are not able
to do something about our generating capacity over the next ten to fifteen
years.
Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is not a problem for the economy of Newfoundland
and Labrador; Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, is the solution.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One of the reasons Muskrat Falls power is so expensive is because there is
such a small amount of power being created for such expensive infrastructure.
Muskrat Falls will provide only one quarter of the energy as the original Lower
Churchill Project but still cost this Province $6.2 billion. The lion's share of
the Lower Churchill power at Gull Island will remain untapped. It is the vast
power at Gull Island, of course, that would have made the Lower Churchill
project in totality and would have made it financially viable.
My question for the Premier is: Why burden the taxpayers of this Province
with another $4.5 billion in debt to finance a project that is only part of a
project?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is the cheapest alternative that is available to
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we heard last week that the acting Leader of the Opposition
had been commenting on the Muskrat Falls deal without having read the Generation
Planning document, which speaks to the load forecast that we have here for the
next fifteen to twenty years, that talks about the capacity that is going to be
required to meet that load forecast. Mr. Speaker, it talks about its legislative
responsibility to provide the people of the Province with the least expensive
power possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the documents provided as part of the Muskrat Falls deal do not
show any transmission lines leading back from Muskrat Falls to Churchill Falls.
However, we understand such lines are necessary and are a necessary part of the
project. Their cost is certainly built into the $6.2 billion project cost.
Can the Premier confirm that there will indeed be two lines coming from
Muskrat Falls back to Churchill Falls, and briefly what the purpose of those
lines are?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, redundancy is required and where it is
necessary it is provided for in the planning of this project. As I said last
week, Mr. Speaker, we were happy to provide members of the Opposition with a
briefing when we did an announcement of this project. I have offered again,
because it is a large, complex piece of work, Mr. Speaker. To offer further
briefings to the Acting Leader of the Opposition and members of his party, I
make that offer again, Mr. Speaker, so he understands the nuances of this deal
in a very particular way. Perhaps we can have a more enlightened discussion here
on the floor of the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the Premier, we did have a briefing and we will request whatever
further briefings we consider necessary. I also thought the purpose of Question
Period is the Premier could explain to the people of this Province some of these
obvious, simple questions. To suggest that you are going to slough it off onto a
briefing meeting when the people have a right to know is absolutely
irresponsible.
I say to the Premier, the power plant at Muskrat Falls will not be built in
isolation of the bigger generating plant at Churchill Falls. In fact, our
understanding is that because of its size, Muskrat can only provide a
twenty-three hour guaranteed supply of energy on any given day. It will need the
backup of the Upper Churchill in order to offer customers a guaranteed, firm
supply of power.
Can the Premier confirm that this is indeed so? If so, has the Premier or
Nalcor had any discussions with Hydro Qubec about a swap deal in order to have
a firm supply of power at Muskrat?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the one thing that we can all rest assured in, in Newfoundland
and Labrador, is that the expert team that we have put together at Newfoundland
and Labrador Hydro understands power transmission and what they need to do to
meet their commitments, not only to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but
to their customers.
Mr. Speaker, we have been running Churchill Falls through Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro and CF(L)Co we are working our way towards sixty years, Mr.
Speaker. There is ebb and flow, there is demand, there are reservoirs, there is
water management, and there is the capacity we have here in the Province through
other generation facilities. We will be able to meet all of our commitments to
everyone we have made the commitment to.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We all know the Muskrat Falls Project is only a shadow of the original Lower
Churchill Project. Not only is it smaller, it is radically different in scope,
environmentally. This project is so radically different, in fact, that the joint
federal-provincial panel that was struck to examine the environmental impact of
the Lower Churchill sees Muskrat as potentially an entirely new project.
My question to the Premier is this: What discussions have Nalcor officials or
government had with the joint panel about this new project, and how does it
affect your timeline for any intended construction?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is in the best interests of everybody in this Province to
ensure that we undergo the scrutiny of a very thorough environmental assessment.
That is all we have asked of the panel, Mr. Speaker. We will provide whatever
information they require.
This is a very good project, Mr. Speaker; not only good for the people in
Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada, but this is good for all of
Canada. We are sure that environmental assessment will show that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I asked the Premier last week about the Province's position with regard to
the Wells' Recommendation about an independent safety board, separate from the
C-NLOPB, and the Premier at that time responded that she was awaiting the report
of the C-NLOPB with regard to that decision.
Well, they had a press conference this morning, and the C-NLOPB's position,
with regard to that recommendation, is that it is a policy issue and it has to
be government, and not the board that would have to deal with that issue of a
separate safety division for the protection of offshore workers.
I ask the Premier: Government has received the board's brief, particularly
with regard to recommendation 29 of the Wells Inquiry. Is this government
prepared to change the mandate of the C-NLOPB and have discussions with the
federal government about changing the mandate, such that we can create an
independent safety regulator, rather than as it is currently structured?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the final report of the helicopter inquiry is a significant
piece of work. I, on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,
would like to thank Justice Wells for his work, and also say at this time, Mr.
Speaker, that we fully support all of the recommendations of Commissioner Wells,
including recommendation 29. I will be contacting the federal government to
begin discussions about the setup of a standalone regulator, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Fisheries stated that the infamous
MOU Memorandum of Understanding, or, as some would call it, the months of
uncertainty - would finally be in his hands at the end of the week.
I ask the minister: Has he had an opportunity to review the details, or even
the executive
summary; and, if so, can he share with the public any information
or recommendations contained in that report?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have to comment on the memorandum of
uncertainty. If that does not paint a negative picture, Mr. Speaker, on what
people perceive of this process, I do not what it does.
Mr. Speaker, this MOU is of paramount importance to how the fishery is going
to proceed in the future here. This finalized document got to the independent
chair early in November because the parties engaged wanted some more time to
deal specifically around the marketing issue, as was alluded to here in the
statements earlier.
Mr. Speaker, I have not received the report yet. The technical detail of this
report is being finalized at the request of the independent chair working with
our officials. I can assure the people of the Province when this comes to our
government, we will preview it and then the public will know what is in it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest failure on behalf of the minister
to answer the question I asked is a part of the reason why many in the industry
are calling it as I have just stated a moment ago.
In July 2009, Mr. Speaker, the minister allocated up to $800,000 for the MOU
process, and it was expected to be completed within five months. It is now
seventeen months since the process started.
I ask the minister today: Were there any cost overruns associated with the
long delay in the MOU process; and, if so, can he indicate to us the amount and
provide us with a breakdown of the expenses now that the report is all but
complete?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, this process started in 2009. As I said before,
this is a process that is being industry-driven for the industry.
Mr. Speaker, the issue around the funds, I do not have a particular issue.
The money was allocated. I cannot speak specifically to the exact dollar amount,
but I would have no problem sharing it with the member. It is all done in the
best interest of making this industry the best that it possibly can be in this
Province and that we start to paint a positive message around the fishery rather
than a negative image, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, in 2006 this government invested $15 million in a
broadband initiative, and then, on February 15 of last year, the government
quietly announced that the Government's Broadband Initiative was cancelled in
the fifth paragraph of a lengthy news release.
My question to the minister today is: Now that the initiative has been
cancelled, what plans does government have in place to provide broadband to the
hundreds of schools, government buildings, health facilities, public libraries,
and others who have no access to broadband throughout our Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we are more than committed to providing broadband access across
this Province. The project was not cancelled, Mr. Speaker; the project was put
on hold because it was not cost effective. In fact, half a billion dollars was
not a wise use of taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker. The monies that we have spent,
Mr. Speaker, have leveraged some very good benefits for the people of this
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The $15 million for the trans-gulf connection, Mr. Speaker, has netted us
some benefits that are applauded right across this Province: 80 per cent of
Newfoundland and Labrador now has access to high-speed Internet and high-speed
capability, and about 90 per cent to 95 per cent of Labrador, Mr. Speaker. So,
the monies that have been spent have been well spent, and we are certainly very
committed to seeing that things will be expanded.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the 20 per cent of the communities that are not
connected today, I am very familiar with many of them. The answer as to why they
do not have high-speed at this point is basically because it is not a business
case; however, government has a record and an obligation, obviously, of
providing services and facilities throughout our Province, such as roads and
other things, which are not necessarily a business case as well.
It is not acceptable that the growth of our communities, the existence of
business, and the attraction of new business be held at ransom because of the
unwillingness of private companies to provide service where there is no
business.
I would ask the minister: Will this government intervene to make that happen
for the people in these communities?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the parts of the Province that still do not
have the kind of connectivity that we would like to see. As MHAs, I am sure we
have all been dealing with that, but we do not have the leverage that we would
like to do that. That is federally regulated. That is the CRTC. That is Industry
Canada. I would suspect that the member opposite is aware of that. Those are the
areas where we need to lobby. We need to be putting pressure there.
Business cases need to be made for some of those areas, there is no doubt
about that; but we certainly have been doing our part, and we have been
aggressively lobbying with Industry Canada and with the CRTC.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I want to give the opportunity to the Minister
of Transportation to answer the question I asked last week, because we got
carried away in the calculations of ferries that were afloat and sheds that were
to be built in years to come.
Mr. Speaker, concerned citizens have called on the government to re-establish
the provincial user ferries committee to generate common sense improvements to
the ferry service. It is my understanding, Minister, that last spring you made a
commitment and expressed support for the re-establishment of this committee.
I ask the minister: Why the about-face when you wrote to Mr. Jim Forward from
Little Bay Islands with a resounding no to the re-establishment of this
committee?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, the ferry services
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, for which we are responsible for, are the
key to these communities that we serve. There is nothing better to find out what
their needs are than to be dealing specifically with each and every one of them.
Now since I took over this post about a year ago, I have made sure that I
have been in direct contact with each and every one of these committees. As I
look down from last year to this year, I have attended over thirty meetings and
have made contact with them. To be quite honest with you, Mr. Speaker, that is
where I should be: right on the ground, finding out what the needs are, and
responding in the most appropriate ways.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the minister has met with
the committees, but many of them feel that this is a divide and conquer policy.
Mr. Speaker, the ferry issue is more than numbers; it is about delivering
quality service to the ferry communities. Residents feel that the provincial
ferry service remains substandard. There are conditions where there are no
washrooms and no decent ferry terminals in many communities.
I ask the minister: What do you intend to do to address the inconsistent
service in the Province's ferry communities? Why not resurrect the provincial
ferry users committee to initiate a dialogue and general solutions?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, I will just refer back to me rising in
the House last week and talking about making sure that we are dealing with these
needs. I very clearly articulated that we do have a strategy, and a very
important strategy. A strategy that we picked up in 2003 because it was
abandoned by a former Administration that had not provided anything in the way
of a new ferry or shipbuilding since they cancelled that program back in 1991.
I say to the hon. member opposite: we have heard, we have consulted, we have
heard, we have listened, and we are responding as a government in a very big way
but it is going to take time. Unfortunately, ferries do not just appear.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, on August 24 of this year I sent a letter to the
Minister of Health regarding the lack of dialysis treatment in St. Anthony. I
requested a meeting to discuss the issue; however, no response was ever
received. Upset dialysis patients and their families have been calling my office
and they do not understand why they have to move to some other area of the
Province when dialysis equipment is available in St. Anthony. People are waiting
months and months on a wait-list to get back to the region. The dialysis unit is
currently only open three days a week; staffing appears to be the only issue, is
my understanding.
I ask the minister today: Will the government commit to funding additional
staffing so dialysis patients can return to their region to receive treatment?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In 2003-2004 there was $14.6 million spent on dialysis, Mr. Speaker. In
2010-2011, we are spending $22.7 million annually; a 55 per cent increase over a
period of years. There has been an expansion of dialysis since it was created in
St. Anthony. Mr. Speaker, we currently have other areas in the Province where
people are looking for dialysis. For example, there are four people, I think, on
the wait-list in St. Anthony,
whereas we have eight or nine people in Burin
waiting to have dialysis.
Mr. Speaker, not only do we have areas where people are waiting for dialysis,
we have areas of the Province that do not have dialysis. We have heard
representations from the people of the Harbour Breton area. Mr. Speaker, we have
heard representations from the people of Baie Verte, Bonavista. They do not have
dialysis. We have to balance all of this, Mr. Speaker, and use our monies
wisely.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the fact that St. Anthony is a
satellite site, and normally these sites will accommodate twelve patients. The
problem is that the demand is growing for dialysis services in that region, and,
as indicated by the minister, other regions in the Province as well. We are all
sensitive to that. We have a Tele-Dialysis Program where patients can be
monitored by a specialist from a distance.
I ask the minister: Given the demand for the treatment and the ability to
closely monitor patients through video conferencing, will government revisit the
satellite program to ensure that more people can return to their homes for
dialysis treatment?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly have the greatest sympathy for the people from St.
Anthony who have to seek dialysis treatment elsewhere. I also have the same
sympathy for the people from Burin; we currently have four people in
Stephenville.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, the people from Port aux Basques approached, and I
remember one lady in particular, her husband had to drive to Corner Brook for
dialysis. We, Mr. Speaker, last year announced in the Budget dialysis for Port
aux Basques. I attended in Lab West, last November 27, 2009, and heard the plea
from the people in Lab West for dialysis. In Budget 2010, we announced dialysis
for Port aux Basques.
Mr. Speaker, our Province currently has the second highest number of dialysis
stations in the country and the lowest number of patients per station.
Unfortunately, what we are encountering in St. Anthony is encountered in other
parts of the Province. What we have to do, Mr. Speaker and, again, I say this
with all due respect. The people of the Connaigre Peninsula are looking for
dialysis; we have other areas of the Province that has dialysis. These are tough
decisions to make, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, there are nearly 90,000 people in our Province
suffering from arthritis; that is one in five people. We need at least ten
rheumatologists to care for these patients but we only have four. Of the four
that we have, those doctors make up about 2.8 full-time equivalents, as they are
also responsible for teaching and research.
I ask the minister: Do you feel this level of care is acceptable to the
people of the Province, and, if not, what are you willing to do about it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I stated in this House recently, we currently have 1,098 physicians in
this Province, Mr. Speaker, the highest we have ever had. We have 558
specialists. Fifty-six physicians, Mr. Speaker, have been retained and recruited
since September 30, 2009. Mr. Speaker, our bursary program, our recruitment and
retention program, and hopefully our if we can reach a deal with the NLMA in
the not too distant future, will all result, Mr. Speaker, in attraction of
specialists.
There are certain areas where there are difficulties in recruiting
specialists, Mr. Speaker. Rheumatology is one of them. I am certainly acutely
aware of the difficulties that we face with recruitment in that area; but, Mr.
Speaker, we are trying, Eastern Health is trying, and we will hopefully continue
to recruit and retain in areas that are hard to find specialists, such as
rheumatology.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, people who live outside of St. John's are at a higher risk
because arthritis is more prevalent, and there are no rheumatologists in their
region. Paul Fitzpatrick is one of those patients. He, like many arthritis
patients, is in need of in-patient care. The Arthritis Society has asked for
four protected in-patient beds and a medical team to assess and treat these
patients. That is four beds for potentially 90,000 people.
My question for the minister is this, Mr. Speaker: Why has this government
and the Eastern Regional Health Authority refused to provide this level of
service for these suffering patients?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I just indicated, we have had success in recruiting specialists in many
areas, Mr. Speaker, and we will continue to attempt to recruit specialists.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the wait times in terms of
rheumatology are certainly long. Mr. Speaker, we will attempt and we are
currently, I understand, in conversation with a rheumatologist in terms of
trying to bring someone to the Province.
What seems to be implied in the question of the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, is
that we are not doing anything for people outside in rural Newfoundland and
Labrador. Mr. Speaker, this summer I had the opportunity to view a lot of the
health facilities around this Province; and this summer, Mr. Speaker, we put
over $25.4 million into capital equipment, repairs and renovations in facilities
outside the St. John's area. Mr. Speaker, rural health care is a major concern
for this government and something that we are certainly committed to.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I must say, I was very, very pleased to hear the Premier say earlier that she
and her government are accepting all of the recommendations from the Wells
report. That is very, very good news for the Province and for the people working
in the offshore. One thing that the commissioner did not do was set out a
timeline for his recommendations. He explained that he did not think he was the
appropriate body to do that.
I would like the Premier to give us an idea of what the government is going
to do with regard to working with the C-NLOPB and coming up with timelines for
each of the recommendations.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker
Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB operates at arm's-length from the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not direct the C-NLOPB in any kind of a way.
Mr. Speaker, we support all of the recommendations of Commissioner Wells. The
one that affects us most directly is twenty-nine, and that has been now moved
into our court. What I do commit to is contacting the federal government
immediately and as soon as is possible to commence meetings on the setting up of
a stand-alone regulatory.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quid
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not want the Premier to try to speak for the federal government and
suppose how things will come down as they begin discussions, but could she give
the Province an idea of what her hopes would be for a timeline for getting these
separate safety authorities set up?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I would be misleading the whole Province
if I were to say anything other than as quickly as possible. There is nothing
more important, Mr. Speaker, than human safety, and human safety in our
offshore. This is a matter of high importance, and we will work expeditiously
with our partner, the federal government, to ensure that this happens as quickly
as possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I well understand the independence of the C-NLOPB, however, they are
accountable to the federal and the provincial governments. Today, the C-NLOPB,
in its response to the report, said that it would be starting to put things in
place in the spirit of the concerns of the commission with regard to the safety
issues and what a safety authority would cover.
I would like to ask the Premier: What kind of a dynamic does she think should
go on between the government and the C-NLOPB to make sure that steps that they
are taking in the interim are steps that will lead to the safety authority?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Commissioner Wells well understood the relationship between the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the C-NLOPB, and understood clearly
that we do not direct the C-NLOPB. What he did say in recommendation 29; while
he preferred to see a stand-alone regulator, he also recognized in the absence
of that, that a stand-alone department or piece of the C-NLOPB be set aside for
regulation of health and safety in the offshore.
Mr. Speaker, that is what the C-NLOPB, as I understand it, has committed to
in their news release this morning. That is a good first measure, Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the C-NLOPB, while the provincial and federal government go through
the next steps for the setting up of the stand-alone regulator.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I
shall move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 14,
Further, I give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House
not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 14, 2010.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this Wednesday is the Official Opposition's Private Members' Day
and I would like to table the private member's motion, moved by the Member for
The Straits & White Bay North, seconded by the Member for Burgeo & La Poile:
WHEREAS there are insufficient long-term care facilities and services to care
for our aging population; and
WHEREAS this government committed to a long-term care strategy back in
February 2008 but has failed to live up to its promise; and
WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has the fastest aging population in Canada
and that by the year 2020 one in five people will be over the age of sixty-five;
and
WHEREAS seniors are often spending months and months in acute care beds
waiting to move into a long-term care facility; and
WHEREAS seniors moving between facilities causes Relocation Stress Syndrome
which can result in a serious decline in their health; and
WHEREAS these acute care facilities are not providing the appropriate social
and recreational opportunities to our aging population; and
WHEREAS the improper care of our seniors creates severe stress on families
and friends; and
WHEREAS government policy has failed to provide the proper long-term care and
community support services to the people of this Province;
BE IT RESOLVED that this House calls on government to consider committing
sufficient resources in this upcoming Budget to address the long-term care
needs, facilities, equipment, and appropriate staffing for the aged in our
Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present yet another petition on behalf of the residents in
the District of Port de Grave, I guess in not all of the communities, but in the
communities that encompass and use the Coley's Point Primary School. The
petition reads:
WHEREAS Coley's Point Primary is a wooden structure built in the early 1960s;
and
WHEREAS a consultant's report recommended that a new school be built to
replace this facility; and
WHEREAS the student population is increasing yearly and constitutes a K-3
system; and
WHEREAS this forty-nine-year-old wooden structure should be replaced for the
safety of both staff and student;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon the Members of the
House of Assembly to urge government to take action and proceed with the
construction of a new primary school for Coley's Point.
Mr. Speaker, as I stated there was a consultant's report back probably three
or four years ago where it was recommended that this was a high priority for
that particular area and for that school system. As probably most everybody
knows, in the immediate area in the Bay Roberts system, we have the high school
Ascension Collegiate in Bay Roberts, then we have the intermediate school, the
Amalgamated Academy, and the primary school is this particular facility at
Coley's Point.
We know at that time that even though the consultant's report recommended the
building of the school, I believe the school board at the time and all of those
involved with the east district and so on totally agreed that this was a top
priority, and I know it is today. I hear from different individuals that there
are no major air quality issues there at the present time; there was some
remediation work that had to be done a few years ago.
This structure, Mr. Speaker, is one that should be considered. I know that
the building of new schools and the restructuring of the education system in the
Province we hear talk of the changes coming here in the St. John's area;
hopefully when the new budget comes down, Mr. Speaker, that the people of that
area will hear the news that they thought they would have heard a few years ago.
I am sure the powers to be know that this is a situation that has to be dealt
with. The population is ever increasing there. I know this year in Bay Roberts
alone there were some sixty-seven new homes constructed; that is new families
coming in with young kids who will be going to that facility.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of those who signed this petition I want to present
this and ask the House of Assembly to urge government to see to it that funding
may be announced this year in the upcoming Budget to help with building of this
facility.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, from the Order Paper I am going to go through the
motions, first reading. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the hon.
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to ask leave to introduce a
bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 3, Bill 44 and I
further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is properly 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 44, and that Bill
44 be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 44 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.
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 44)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 3. (Bill 44)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 44 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 44 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion Bill 44 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural
Resources to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Fishing
Industry Collective Bargaining Act, Bill 45, and I further move that the said
bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister
of Fisheries and Aquaculture shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act to Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, Bill 45, and that
Bill 45 be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 45 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.
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 45)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining
Act. (Bill 45)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 45 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 45 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 45 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance
and President of Treasury Board, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between
46, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is properly 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 Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination
And Labrador, Bill 46, and that Bill 46 be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 46 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.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax
Newfoundland And Labrador", carried. (Bill 46)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax
Newfoundland And Labrador. (Bill 46)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 46 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 46 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 46 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural
Resources, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The
Abitibi-Consolidated Rights And Assets Act, Bill 47, and I further move that the
said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister
of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Abitibi-Consolidated Rights And Assets Act, Bill 47, and that Bill 47
be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 47 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.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An
Act To Amend The Abitibi-Consolidated Rights And Assets Act", carried. (Bill 47)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Abitibi-Consolidated Rights And Assets
Act. (Bill 47)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 47 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 47 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 47 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The
Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2, Bill 48, and I further move that the said bill
be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend
The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2, Bill 48, and that Bill 48 be now read a
first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 48 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.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An
Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2", carried. (Bill 48)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2. (Bill
48)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 48 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 48 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 48 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of
Government Services, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend
The Public Accountants Act, Bill 49, and I further move that the said bill be
now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of
Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Public Accountants Act, Bill 49, and that Bill 49 be now read a first
time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 49 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.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An
Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act", carried. (Bill 49)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act. (Bill 49)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 49 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 49 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 49 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Standard
Time Act, Bill 50, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first
time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs shall ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The
Standard Time Act, Bill 50, and that Bill 50 be now read a first time.
All those in favour that Bill 50 be now read a first time?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An
Act To Amend The Standard Time Act", carried. (Bill 50)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act. (Bill 50)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 50 has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 50 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 50 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural
Resources, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The
Petroleum And Natural Gas Act, Bill 51, and I further move that the said bill be
now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of
Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend
The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act, Bill 51, and that Bill 51 be now read a first
time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 51 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.
Motion, the hon. Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act
To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act", carried. (Bill 51)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Petroleum And Natural Gas Act. (Bill
51)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 51 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 51 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act
To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005, Bill 52, and I further move that
the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services shall ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005, Bill 52, and that Bill 52 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.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a
bill, "An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005", carried. (Bill 52)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005.
(Bill 52)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall Bill 52 be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 52 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I want to call Order 12, second reading of Bill
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education,
that Bill 43,
An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read a second
time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 43 be now read a
second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act,
1999". (Bill 43)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, it was only this Friday past that I was happy,
very pleased, and, as a matter of fact, I was honoured to be out on the Island
of Fogo in regard to an amalgamation process that has been undergoing within
government for the last three-and-a-half years or so. It finally came to
fruition with the signing of an MOU on Fogo Island on Friday past. It was
welcomed by all of the communities in question.
There was a lot of work that went into that particular process by various
mayors in the past, by various stakeholders and various leaders within the
communities, as well as MNL, and all of my officials in the Department of
Municipal Affairs, of which one now has just recently retired. As a matter of
fact, I made it a point that that particular person would be on Fogo Island to
witness the amalgamation of those particular communities into one community: the
community of Fogo Island.
That process, as I said, was a process that was welcomed and also initiated
by the communities in question. We followed it through because I have to state
up front, as well, Mr. Speaker, that we do not force amalgamation but if there
are communities in Newfoundland and Labrador that would wish to follow that
process, then we will follow that process along with those particular
communities to see, number one, if it is feasible; to see, number two, if it is
a benefit to the particular communities. Once we find certain things out and we
decide to go forward to make sure that that actual process and that actual
government works - because that is exactly what has to happen. If we are going
to go forward with regard to amalgamation, it not only has to be a benefit for
the communities in question but there also has to be a benefit on the governance
side for Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to make sure that the actual
governance would work, that they would run their communities responsibly, that
there would be fairness under the process, and that each and every community
would not lose its identity, as was proven in other amalgamations; such as down
in New-Wes-Valley a number of years ago.
From my point of view, only being the Minister of Municipal Affairs - I
became aware of that issue the day I was shuffled and sworn in at Government
House. It became an absolute priority for me, as the Minister of Municipal
Affairs, because there was a fair bit of time put into it by various people and
I wanted to see this come to fruition. They can get started in regard to the
governance, in which I believe there will be an election of representatives of
that particular governance side on February 22, 2011. I look forward to the
outcome of that.
This amendment specifically addresses an issue that arose during that
process. This amendment allows an alternate governance structure to be set on a
transitional basis until they can get to the point where they can actually elect
a council under the present structure that is listed under the Municipalities
Act 1999, in that there has to be a ward system and also representatives at
large. To move this forward - we could not go into that structure right away. I
think that would be wrong, because there are questions to be answered along the
way of that process in regard to the transition process. There is certainly some
apprehension as well by the people of those particular communities. That will
not go away any time soon. It will go away during the process. When they see
that the governance structure in New-Wes-Valley works, they will see that the
governance structure works in other communities and they will buy into that and
see the benefits thereof.
I thought what was referenced in regard to the consultant's report, which is
a part of that process as well, it was suggested that we should probably have a
structure in place on a transitional basis from now until about 2013, I think,
is the next scheduled elections for municipal councils in Newfoundland and
Labrador. We have a transition period here now to go through and then we will
have a structure set in place at the end of that time which will certainly
reflect what is now written in the Municipalities Act, 1999 in regard to the
ward system and councillors at large.
Essentially, what this amendment does, Mr. Speaker, is allow for a structure
that gives equal representation to the communities that are amalgamating;
depending on the size. It is structured to depending on the population base in
each one of the communities. Not to list them all, but two of the larger
communities there on Fogo Island will have two representatives; just two, which
gives four. Then in each of the other communities, five; they will have one
each. They thought that would definitely give them equal representation in
regard to addressing some of the things they have to address now in regard to
the location of services, sharing of services, making sure that there is a
balance to each and every one of the homeowners on Fogo Island, and that each
and every one of those homeowners and those communities are represented and also
treated equally under the new governance structure.
I certainly welcome this amendment because, for the simple reason, when I see
communities go down this path, Mr. Speaker, I also see - not fear as much as
apprehension - the uncertainty of amalgamation. They have been so long - the
history of Fogo Island with regard to the various communities there; Tilting
being one, it is a National Historic Site. It was actually proclaimed that a
number of years ago, which I had the fortunate aspect of attending. These
communities go back in time. They have their own unique cultures, unique to
themselves. We want that protected under that process as well.
I think it is paramount that they have equal representation to come to the
table, work together in a unified system to make sure that this works and it is
actually done right. That is what this amendment is all about, is doing the
thing right, making sure that they have time to do it right; making sure that we
provide the services and also provide the expertise within the Department of
Municipal Affairs to provide that service, that background, and that help to
these particular people who will be elected on February 22, 2011.
So, Mr. Speaker, not to belabour the piece of legislation; I think it is
pretty straightforward. To me, anyway, it is. I think that hon. members across
the House will agree that it is probably the best thing to do when we have these
types of communities explore and then enter into an agreement to amalgamate, for
the best interests of all the residents of those communities on Fogo Island in
this particular case. I think this will be used if any other communities would
entertain being amalgamated in the future, by whatever government there may be
here. I know we are going to be around for a long, long time to come for sure,
probably into the 2020s. That is what I think anyway, because we have been
getting good representation here in Newfoundland and Labrador from this
government since 2003. I do not think anything is going to change any time soon
in regard to that. Maybe up around 2020 or something like that, we may have a
change. I do not think we will, though, in the meantime.
Anyway, we will continue to go down this path in supporting all those
particular communities that may wish to consider any type of structure,
regionalization, amalgamation, or whatever it is. We are not into forcing that
particular issue on councils. I want to make that clear to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, that we are not into that, but when we are approached
to provide solutions, to help them better govern themselves, then certainly my
officials and myself as the Minister of Municipal Affairs are always there.
Also, Mr. Speaker, in regard to past Ministers of Municipal Affairs, they
were there every step of the way as well. There were a couple, two or three as a
matter of fact - three in particular who were on this file from its beginning.
I only handled this file for probably about six weeks after I became the new
Minister of Municipal Affairs. It was a pleasure for me to partake in that
event. It was a very emotional event. It was a very worthwhile event. The people
on Fogo Island turned out in great numbers. They filled the gymnasium of the
school, and tears were in their eyes that they had worked this through. They had
come together as a full community. Whatever happened in the past, whatever it
may be in history was all under the bridge. They were ready to move forward and
they were ready to take their own destiny in their hands in regard to Fogo
Island.
I see nothing but good in the future of Fogo Island. A lot of things are
happening there economically; there is great investment in Fogo Island. There
was actually an increase of 20-odd per cent in regard to the crossings to Fogo
Island this summer alone. I believe that is a testament to the great work that
is being done on Fogo Island, a great testament to this government's support to
the people of Fogo Island, and also a great testament to the great work of the
MHA of Fogo Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: That is what I see. The member for the area, for Fogo
Island, has been on this file since he was elected. As a matter of fact, he was
one of the first persons that asked me for a meeting once I was appointed as the
new Minister of Municipal Affairs. I met with him; he brought this to my
attention. He instilled in me the importance that it happen and that it happen
sooner than later so we gave every bit of attention to that file.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take my seat in this House and welcome
any comments by my hon. members across the House. I am sure they are all going
to be positive for the simple reason that this is a good amendment. It is a
friendly amendment. It is a well needed amendment in regard to the transition
piece between the various councils coming together pursuing amalgamation; you
need a transition period to get them and make sure that they do it right and
proper and then they hold their destiny in their own hands.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a privilege to be able to stand and speak to this act, Bill 43,
An Act
To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 for a few moments.
The minister made a comment about doing it right and certainly that is
important when anything is done in terms of changes of legislation and so on; if
it is not right at the moment then we want to certainly see that it is right
when it is completed. Hopefully that will be the outcome of this act.
It is a housekeeping amendment; if I understand it correctly. I would just
like to go through my synopsis of it if you will so that we understand what the
change is doing. If I do state something incorrectly then the minister can
correct that for me as he speaks to it a little later.
It adds two subsections to
section 14 of the act on wards. Basically, under
the current Municipalities Act of 1999, a town council must have a majority of
at large councillors. An example of that would be a council that would have
seven members and obviously four of those would have to be members at large.
This amendment was made to accommodate regional governance as the minister spoke
about a moment ago, particularly the initiative of the Fogo Island council that
was announced last week. What this does is it allows the new Fogo Island council
to elect ward councillors for their first council to ensure that each council
has a voice on this new council. It is a bit of a tongue twister, but basically
that is my understanding of it.
The issue was identified as an impediment when bringing towns together; they
would be swallowed by the larger council. When you talk about regionalization,
that is one of the issues that comes from the smaller members, if you will, in
the body.
This is only a transitional measure, as I understand it as well. At the next
municipal election in 2013, they can elect councillors at large or a combination
of ward councillors and so on. For example, the new council will determine the
governing body of the council to ensure an equitable way to govern, but it will
not be imposed on them by government; that is my understanding of what this
does.
The ward councillors cannot exceed the councillors at large as well. At that
time when this process unfolds, the current regional council there will be
disbanded by this new town of Fogo council and it will mirror the structure of
the regional council for now. The only one limitation for this act is that this
is for the first election only and then it is no longer in effect I believe.
Regional council, Mr. Speaker; regional government, if you want to call it
that, I believe, is a very positive road. For many of us, we see it as a way of
the future. For those of us who are MHAs in rural Newfoundland, I am sure that
many of us would agree that we need to see more regional co-operation, more
coming together in the future. It is the only way really, quite frankly that
rural Newfoundland and Labrador can properly survive. To see this initiative
being done is a good thing. We are all aware that there are significant concerns
regarding the future of municipal governments in our Province and service
sharing will help ensure that we remain sustainable.
Some of the concerns that we see in terms of municipalities and
sustainability; we understand that 21 per cent or so of municipalities have
preventative maintenance for sewer systems a very, very low number when we
understand the importance of sewer systems in municipalities as a part of their
infrastructure. Yet we have just a little over 20 per cent that would have a
preventative maintenance plan in place. Other statistics that we see, for
example; 24 per cent conduct regular preventative maintenance for water
Systems; only 50 per cent of the municipal towns in our Province actually
have a municipal plan and many of them if not half of them or so are more
than ten years old.
When we look at statistics like that and when we see these important measures
not in place we understand the stress and the challenge on small municipalities,
on small local service districts and so on to properly service its people. The
idea of regionalization and communities coming together to form one larger
community is a very positive thing.
The case of Fogo pulling together eleven communities to reshape their
management approach and their community identity was a great achievement, but
there are some concerns that I want to just make mention before I finish
speaking in a moment.
Certainly, the $5 million that government allocated was a very important and
necessary part of this initiative because it would indeed allow those Combined
Councils to have a fresh start without the burden of debt. Without doing that
there probably would be no way forward. The announcement of the $5 million to
help accommodate that certainly is a good thing.
Unless this government makes some immediate headway on working out a new
municipal fiscal framework with the municipalities then our concern would be
that this debt will only reoccur over time. The towns still have to provide for
the same services that they do today. They are still providing for road
maintenance, they are still providing for snow clearing, they are still
providing for garbage disposal, they still need the resources to be able to
carry out that type of work.
So, Fogo Island very well could be a model for other communities who are
contemplating coming together to cut costs, enhance services, and so on, but
without this new municipal fiscal framework then, again, our concern would be
that in a few years all of these towns and local service districts will simply
go back into debt where they find themselves today.
The MNL are to be commended for taking a leadership role in promoting and
encouraging regional co-operation as well. I certainly hope that we will see
more of it throughout our Province as time goes on.
We had the October conference of the MNL this fall. I know one of the key
messages that came from there was the heavy challenges that are facing the
municipalities in terms of sustaining themselves fiscally. Communities are
facing declining tax bases, they are facing aging populations, they are facing
expanding services and so on, and more downloading of both federal and
provincial governments. Government has promised a new revenue sharing
arrangement and we are looking forward to that, hoping that it will come very
soon. Certainly, we would like to see that in the not-too-distant future. While
we understand that there is a good dialogue on the go between the MNL and
government on this process, we certainly would urge government to seriously
consider looking at the short-term support, including the expanding of MOGs and
so on.
Some of the issues that were raised and made light to us in terms of the
implementation of the changes of this act not everyone, of course, would be
pleased with the creation of one council for Fogo and the new partnership
approach. I suppose that not everyone would be pleased with any suggested change
because we know that sometimes we resist change; yet, we know that change is the
only real constant that we have. We see change around us all the time; yet, when
we are in our comfort zone, when things are going well, and we are used to the
present, changing it is not always something we want to do.
One e-mail that came into the office spoke to the fact that the democratic
process may have been compromised. It expressed concern about the need to
safeguard the loss of identity and symbolism as a community. So, that would be
important.
Also, a comment from MNL that I thought was important for us to see was from
Robert Keenan. He says allowing for an all-ward system council is good for an
amalgamated community and helps amalgamations, but the main problem that he
understood or sees with it is that it confines the all-ward system to only the
first election. In 2013, the new Fogo Island community municipality must have
more at-large representatives than wards which means the smaller communities
will likely have fewer representatives in 2013. That would be a concern, not
necessarily a bad thing, as noted, because it will hopefully force some
island-wide candidates to emerge.
It does not give the council a long time to come together and to overcome
decades of competition, tension and so on, which is not uncommon in regions
where there are smaller communities that have competed against each other for a
number of years and now suddenly they are coming together. So a proper time
frame to work through that and to get through it and so on is important.
Those are just a few comments on this particular amendment, and we certainly
will be supporting this amendment, Bill 43,
An Act To Amend The Municipalities
Act, 1999.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, am happy to stand and to support this bill,
An Act To Amend The
Municipalities Act, 1999.
Basically, it is all pretty straightforward as has been described both by the
minister and my colleague from the Official Opposition. Just to make a couple of
comments, I think that it is a wonderful sign, actually, of where we are in our
Province at the moment that the Island of Fogo with, I think, its ten
communities has been able to come to this agreement.
It should not be surprising to us, though, because we remember what happened
on Fogo Island when they ran into problems with the fishery back in the 1960s,
and the process that they went through of bringing their community together and
forming what initially was a boatbuilding co-operative, and that then became the
fishing co-operative of Fogo Island. They do have a history of facing a problem
together, then dealing with that problem together, and coming up a co-operative
way of dealing with it.
I think this latest move by the communities on Fogo Island is a sign of the
co-operative way in which they can work together. We all know funny stories from
the past in Newfoundland, not just on Fogo Island. I know a number of people
from Fogo Island. So, I am speaking from their experience, the stories of
communities where on one side of the harbour there was the Catholic side, on the
other side the Protestant side, and on Saturday night they got on the bridge and
fought together. Certainly, there are communities on Fogo Island that have those
stories, and they laugh about it.
In spite of that history, here we have these ten communities saying we can
work together. We do have to acknowledge that this kind of an action by a group
of communities can leave smaller communities feeling left out. I think it is
extremely important that this piece of legislation is being passed here together
in this House, so that it allows the smaller towns on the Island towns like
Seldom and Titling, which are really quite small to know that they will have a
voice on the new council. Then it will be up to that new council - they will
have a couple of years in operation before the next election - to decide how
they are going to move forward when they continue their process of elections.
In the beginning, we now have a system - by passing this bill today - whereby
every one of those communities will have somebody on the council, and then that
council will elect their mayor. I have to say last week I did hear the Mayor of
Fogo which is, I think, the largest community on the Island talking about this;
he was being interviewed on one of our radio stations. He was proud of what they
were doing, and I am sure he must be very proud today that the Legislature is
going to pass this bill that is going to allow them to do what they need to do
to recognize each other, to be respectful of each other, and to work in a
co-operative way around the table.
We always have to remember while, in one way, we look at nature and we say
expressions like the survival of the fittest, the majority rules, et cetera, we
always have to be aware of the minority voice. We always have to be aware of
those who have less power in our systems. This piece of legislation that we are
passing today is recognizing that. It is recognizing that we have a
responsibility to make sure that every voice is heard; that it is not just the
survival of the fittest or the rule of the majority; that even in elections
where we have majorities, majorities have to be aware of the minority voice of
those who do not have the same position.
I am not going to beat this to death, Mr. Speaker. I think we have had a fair
bit talked about with regard to the bill itself. It is straightforward now that
instead of favouring the councillors at large - because the current legislation
says that the number of councillors elected at large shall not be less than the
total number of councillors elected for the wards plus one councillor. In other
words, you have more councillors at large than you have ward councillors. We now
see a variation which will have equality, or you could even have all ward
councillors without a councillor at large in the model that is being proposed
here. It shows a favouring of the ward system, a favouring of the voice of all,
and that voice should be a voice of equality among all of them.
With that, Mr. Speaker, number one, I congratulate the Island of Fogo on
facing adversity together, because they are having financial problems up there.
They are certainly hoping that by this amalgamation they are going to be able to
deal with debt and with the financial problems they have. It is also a moment
too, for us to recognize that the government does have to look at the needs of
the rural municipalities in particular.
I think we do have to come back to a grants program that will meet the needs
of the smaller communities, because even with the amalgamation, Fogo still has
some major infrastructure that it is going to have to deal with the island, I
mean, when I say Fogo. It has infrastructural needs, like the other rural
communities in particular. It is not just rural communities, infrastructural
needs internally to the municipality that they do not have the population base
to cover.
Government really does have to look at the reinstating of a grants program
for the municipalities. Let's not just support the municipalities by changing
this legislation today, let's also, I ask the government, look at how to put in
place the grants program so that we are showing financial support for the
municipalities as well.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): If the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs
speaks now he shall close debate.
The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure for me to rise in this House again to close debate in regard
to Bill 43,
An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999.
As I suspected in regard to the comments by the hon. members across the
House, that all of it was positive. They see the absolute benefit of this
amendment in regard to setting up a structure that would help any amalgamation
process to really transition to what is expected, and what has to happen under
the ward system and the councillors at large.
In this case, it is the amalgamation of the municipalities on Fogo Island to
a new municipality of the Town of Fogo Island is what essentially it is going to
be. They will transition over the next couple of years to 2013; we will help
them through that process and move them forward. We will be along there every
step of the way, and I am quite sure, as shown out there on Friday in regard to
the leadership on that island, that this will happen and this will happen right.
It will be the best for the future of the Island of Fogo.
It certainly shows, as referenced by my hon. colleagues across the House, a
sign of co-operation; a sign, not only of co-operation of the municipalities and
the communities there, but also in regard to this government. We are there - we
have been there right from the beginning, the get-go in 2003 - to assist the
various municipalities across Newfoundland and Labrador; the LSDs and even the
unincorporated bodies as well if we possibly can do it. It is a little harder
but certainly we are there, because we are all people of Newfoundland and
Labrador. We all have our wants and needs. We all have our challenges and
issues. That is what we were elected to do, to try to work through all of that
as a unified body, being of Newfoundland and Labrador. I cannot see anything but
good coming out of these amendments. I am sure that the amendments will be used
in future governments, future Ministers of Municipal Affairs, when and if other
communities decide to go down this path in amalgamating their communities into
one municipality.
I heard the hon. Member for The Straits & White Bay North mention that in
some cases, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, this might be very well needed.
That in regard to the survival of rural Newfoundland and Labrador you are going
to see a lot more co-operation; you are going to see a lot more regionalization;
you are going to see a lot more of shared services.
Again, I will say this in this House, where I am clear: we are not promoting
amalgamation as a government. That is up to the communities. That is up to the
people of those communities. That is up to the leaders in those communities to
take that direction and take that process, or to start that process. All we are
here for, as a government, is to help them in the case of whatever they choose.
If they choose to stand alone as a municipality or if they choose to have some
type of a regional government or whatever shared services they might want to
entertain - such as fire and emergency services - or if they want to amalgamate,
we are there to support whatever they decide. I want to be clear on that here
today, Mr. Speaker.
In turn, I was quite pleased to be on Fogo Island on Friday past because it
was a part of history. It was a very historic event on Fogo Island; a long, long
history with regard to this Province. They played a vital role in our fishery.
They played a vital role in regard to the culture that we are so proud of here
in this Province. To see this come together and see the tears in their eyes and
to know that the future of Fogo Island is in the best hands and in a place in
time that it could not ask for any better. Yes, we did write off some debts and
we did some other things out there as well. The most important piece of this has
nothing to do with writing off debts, it has nothing to do with the other
investments we made, it is about co-operation, it is about the pride, and it is
about the vision of the future of Fogo Island. When you have that vision and you
capitalize on that, and you capitalize on the strengths within the various
communities and the stakeholders and the leaders there, the outcome will be
nothing but good for the people of the Island of Fogo.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House. I welcome any other
questions, or if there are any questions once this piece of legislation enters
the committee stage, I will try to answer them and bring clarity to the
amendments proposed in Bill 43.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 43,
An Act To
Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read a second time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 43)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
Now? Tomorrow?
MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Presently.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999", read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 43)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 10, second reading of
Bill 41.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to move and moved and seconded by my colleague, the Minister
of Health and Community Services - Bill 41,
An Act To Amend The Licensed
Practical Nurses Act, 2005.
MR. SPEAKER: It is now moved and seconded that Bill 41,
An Act To Amend
The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Licensed Practical
Nurses Act, 2005". (Bill 41)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just let me read into the record, this is
An Act To Amend The Licensed
Practical Nurses Act.
Section 30 of the act "is amended by adding immediately
after paragraph (
c) the following: (c.1) providing for the issuance of different
classes of licences".
Mr. Speaker, licensed practical nurses in this Province are a self-regulating
body. There are some limitations and restrictions in the current legislation
that prohibits the council for LPNs to issue certain classes of licences.
For example, if a licensed practical nurse were to move from another province
to Newfoundland and Labrador and was eligible for registration, but had some
temporary limitations or restrictions on their practice, for example, then the
current licensing body in this Province cannot issue a licence with a
restriction. Or, in the event that the College of Licensed Practical Nurses
wanted to place a restriction on the practice of an LPN who is practicing and
licensed to practice in Newfoundland and Labrador today, there are some
limitations within the current legislation that prohibit the council from
issuing a licence with a restriction to practice in some fashion, Mr. Speaker.
Or, at some point in time, depending on how that profession evolves, there may
be opportunities to have various classes of licence to be issued, based on
training and certification.
So there are a number of very practical and pragmatic reasons, I say, Mr.
Speaker, to have this amendment made to the legislation that will allow the
licensing body to issue certain classes or place certain restrictions or to
provide certain provisions attached to the issuance of a licence. I might add,
Mr. Speaker, this would be pretty consistent with the licence for the practice
of nursing in the Province. The ARNNL, for example, who have an ability to issue
a licence of practice for RNs in the Province, would have such a provision in
their current legislation. I say, Mr. Speaker, this practice and this amendment
would, in fact, make a provision for licensed practical nurses that is the same
provision that is available to and applies to other types of nursing practice in
the Province.
Mr. Speaker, we are very blessed in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a very
strong network, some 2,700 LPNs in practice in Newfoundland and Labrador, all
making a very valuable contribution to their profession, all making a very
valuable contribution to the health system in Newfoundland and Labrador. I had
the pleasure last Friday evening, to attend a graduation ceremony of the College
of the North Atlantic, Clarenville campus, where they are graduating and
honouring twenty-seven new graduates into the profession, Mr. Speaker. This is
one of a number of locations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador where people
can enrol in the program and respond to the need for an increased work force.
There have been many changes in this profession in the last eight or ten
years, I say, Mr. Speaker; a number of changes that have seen significant
enhancements in this profession. A few short years ago licensed practical nurses
in this Province were not able to dispense medication, for example. The nature
of the practice is advanced such now that they are now in a position to
administer medications and various medications within hospitals and community
settings. I say, Mr. Speaker, that is one of many changes that has occurred in
recent years that have seen the nature and the scope of practice for LPNs
expanded in a very dramatic way in Newfoundland and Labrador in recent years.
This has come about as a result of advances in training; come about as a result
of change in the governance structure for LPNs that practice in the Province.
The amendment that we are making here today, in as much as it is a pretty simple
amendment some may refer to it as a housekeeping amendment to the legislation
is an important one as we advance the practice of licensed practical nurses in
this Province who we believe are a critical component of our health system. The
number is, as I said earlier, currently at 2,700; that number has grown
significantly in recent years and we forecast that as time moves forward this
number will increase in a very significant way as well.
One of the other things that changes in legislation like this and this is a
real good example, Mr. Speaker, where this kind of change improves the
portability of licensed practical nurses throughout Newfoundland and Labrador as
they move from various jurisdictions in Canada. We are a part of a broader
arrangement with other jurisdictions such that there is a freedom of mobility,
an ease of mobility between various jurisdictions. So it is important for the
legislation that governs our various disciplines in Newfoundland and Labrador to
be consistent with that of other jurisdictions. If we are going to facilitate
the easy movement of LPNs from other jurisdictions into this Province and should
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are licensed to practice in this Province
wish to pursue their careers someplace else in Canada, they need the flexibility
to be able to move in an unrestricted fashion to those jurisdictions. Many times
when we have self-regulating bodies like this our legislation will be governed
and influenced by what is happening in other jurisdictions as will our
legislation here influence what happens in other jurisdictions.
I say, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today on behalf of my colleague, the
Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce this amendment to this
piece of legislation that is currently in place that deals with the practice of
licensed practical nurses in the Province and makes a very friendly amendment to
the current legislation. Let me repeat it, there is only one small
section being
changed, we are adding the words "providing for the issuance of different
classes of licences," which provides a greater flexibility and a greater
autonomy for the licensing body to issue licences that have a special class or
special provisions for licensed practical nurses in the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White
Bay North.
MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my privilege as Member of The Straits & White Bay North, to be able to
stand and just say a few words, have a few comments, about the simple amendment,
as the minister just phrased it, to Bill 41,
An Act To Amend The Licensed
Practical Nurses Act, 2005.
We all know how important a licensed practical nurse, referred to as LPNs, is
in the profession and throughout the system. They are professionals who are able
to perform a wide variety of tasks, as indicated a moment ago by the minister,
under the supervision most often of a registered nurse, a doctor, or whatever
the case might be. They provide a wide range of services and we see those
services broadening all of the time, of course, including whether it is in the
hospitals where they work, whether it is in the residential care facilities
where they work, or whether it is in private homes. We see LPNs every day in
action throughout our communities and throughout our regions, see what they do,
and certainly recognize that it is very, very important.
Once an LPN or a person has gone through the program and they have been
certified, of course, they can provide patient care at different levels. There
are routine nursing tasks, if you will, whether it is assisting with patients'
bathing, going to washrooms, or going to physical therapy, and many other
things. Often that is the kind of work that we find an LPN involved in. Of
course there are also other things, whether it is starting intravenous drips and
doing minor procedures in the hospital and in the rooms, changing the dressings,
and engaging in similar tasks under the supervision of a doctor or an RN as I
said.
We are lucky and we are blessed that we some 2,700 to 3,000 - or whatever
that proper number is in our Province, of licensed practical nurses who hold
their licence under the College of Licensed Practical Nurses of Newfoundland and
Labrador, which this act speaks to.
The changes to legislation that are suggested here this afternoon in
section
30.(
c) is changing so that the college will have regulation-making power, if you
will, respecting the issuance of different classes of licences for practical
nurses. If we look at the registered nursing profession, for example, I believe
they are able to classify nurses as being active, or inactive, or retired and so
on. There may be other types of classifications that would be made as well. This
would appear to be a similar thing that is being proposed in this piece of
legislation here this afternoon. Really, it is just allowing the college to give
the LPNs different classifications for whatever reason that this college feels
it needs to classify those particular individuals.
Again, it is housekeeping, a simple amendment, whatever the case might be,
but if it gives them the ability to do as required then, certainly, we see that
as a good thing. Again, it is a piece of legislation that we have no problem
supporting, and there is not much more to be said. It is the college that
administers the program, we are giving them the ability to basically be able to
have classifications, and we are satisfied to be able to support that today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am very glad to have the opportunity to stand in support of Bill 41,
An Act
To Amend The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, 2005. Of course, housekeeping is
part of what we have to do here. Housekeeping in the sense of there will always
be changes that have to be made to pieces of legislation, some of them very
minor in terms of space they take up but very important in other ways. I think
that this is an example of that, Mr. Speaker, putting one more clause into the
act of 2005 but a clause that gives power to the College of Licensed Practical
Nurses, the power to provide for issuance of different classes of licences.
As has been explained by the minister, this is something that is becoming
more and more required because of the mobility that is going on across the
country of people coming and going, people coming here looking for jobs, LPNs
looking for jobs, and because of the different classifications across the
country, they are probably having problems getting jobs here. I think that this
piece of legislation will certainly enable the college to make sure that the
licensing of LPNs is on a par with that across the country and is current with
what is the practice across the country. It is extremely important that such is
the case.
The LPN is, in some ways, fairly new in general, fairly new in the Province.
There have been many changes to the program over the past ten years. Moving to
eliminate any issues with regard to labour mobility is one of the key things
they have had to deal with.
There have also been changes too, both in what LPNs do as well as in the
requirement for becoming an LPN; upgrading is extremely important. I think there
was money in the past Budget to cover tuition for nurses to get an upgrade. I
think that this would be good, if additional funds are needed, so that all LPNs
can complete their training.
Right now, for example, you have new entrance requirements that were not
there in the past. When the LPN program started, there was no need for the
nurses, for example, to be able to do a health assessment or to have training in
pharmacology, but these are now entry-level compulsories. This is extremely
important that we continue to make sure that everybody in the health field are
all professionals in their area of being professional. It does not matter
whether you are an MD, or an RN, or a licensed practical nurse, an LMP, or a
nurse practitioner, an MP, technologist, technician, they all have professions
and they all have professions that are essential to the health care system. We
should be doing everything in our power to making sure that they are enabled to
keep up in their profession, and to be able to hold their heads high with their
professions in the rest of the country. Right now, I think 74 per cent of the
members are working full-time. This is extremely important.
Mr. Speaker, we do recognize the work that is done by the professionals in
our system. I think we really have to be doing a review of how we can increase
the participation of LPNs and also of practical nurses, and a restructuring in
our health care system here in the Province so that nurse practitioners and
LPNs, in particular, can take on roles that, right now, probably are being done
by RNs and, in some cases, even by MDs that do not need to be done by them.
Now, obviously, what a nurse practitioner takes on will be much more than
what a licensed practical nurse takes on, but I think that we have a long ways
to go in our health care system in the Province to maximize the use of LPNs and
of practical nurses. I know the bill has to do only with LPNs, but I am just
looking at the big picture right now. We need to maximize the use of these other
levels of professionals within the health care system. I think it is an
essential part of the restructuring that is needed. It is part of helping with
wait times in emergency rooms, for example, in particular, Mr. Speaker.
So, having said that, I am really happy to support this bill, and I hope that
it goes to helping the college itself support its own members and become as
professional as they possibly can.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
If the Minister of Business speaks now, he will close debate on Bill 41.
The hon. the Minister of Business.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank my colleagues opposite for their comments and contribution to
this bill.
As I was listening to the Leader of the NDP make her comments, I could not
help but think how far ahead we are in our planning and how far ahead we are in
our actions to be well ahead of her thinking and her own comments here today.
She has highlighted a couple of things that I just want to make some mention of.
She, firstly, commented about the need to provide continuing training for
LPNs so they can advance their practice in the areas of pharmacology, for
example. It was our government - I think it was back in the Budget of 2008 -
that announced one million-and-a-half dollars, if I remember it correctly, to do
just that because the LPNs who are currently in practice had not, in their
training program, completed that particular program. As a requirement to
continue to be licensed - I think it is next year sometime that they all need to
have completed that course - it was our government who made that commitment to
work with the health authorities and the council for LPNs to ensure that all
current LPNs had that certification, and we invested the money and stood up to
the plate to ensure that was a reality.
The other point she talked about was with respect to the mix of LPNs, RNs,
and other practitioners working to the full scope of their practice. The scope
of practice has been something that has been very much on our government's
agenda since 2003 when we came to power. We have been working with all of the
regulatory bodies to advance their respective professions so they are able to
practice at the full scope of their training.
In fact, my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, in
October - just a couple months ago - announced a review as a part of the work
that we are doing with the Long-term Care and Community Supports Strategy. My
colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, committed to working
through with the council of nurse practitioners, the ARNNL, and the Nurses Union
to review the skill mix in the long-term care setting.
I say, Mr. Speaker, as that skill-mix review is undertaken - and a process
has already started, as I understand it, to engage in that process and to engage
people it that