Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers; Oral Questions — 10 June 1992 (41st General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLI No. 54)
1992-06-10
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
June 10,
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLI No. 54
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and
Agriculture.
MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise this hon.
House that the Department of Forestry and Agriculture will be carrying out a
small insect control program against the spruce budworm in 1992.
The proposed program consists of treating approximately
10,000 hectares of balsam fir and spruce with two applications of Bt, a
biological insecticide specific for three defoliating insects such as the
budworm and the hemlock looper.
The main treatment blocks are located near Codroy Pond and in
the silviculture stands in southwestern Newfoundland. The Bt will be applied
using single-engine spray aircraft working from Stephenville Airport. In
addition, approximately 300 hectares of silviculture areas on the Avalon will be
treated using a helicopter.
The program is expected to commence approximately mid-June
and continue up to mid-July, depending on weather conditions and insect
development.
The last spruce budworm spray program was conducted in 1985.
There was no insect control program carried out in 1991 as there was no need for
one. However, we carried out various surveys to determine the extent of insect
population and concluded that a spray program was not necessary.
As in previous years, the program will be carried out under
licence from the Department of Environment and Lands and according to various
guidelines for the use of aerially sprayed pesticides.
Mr. Speaker, attached to the statement is information of a
technical nature for the media and phone numbers that the general public can
call with regards to questions regarding the spray program.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for providing me with a copy of his
ministerial statement, and I want to thank the Member for Humber Valley for
flushing the minister out yesterday when he asked the question on the spray
programs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. R. AYLWARD: I do not know the purpose of this
statement today. The minister announced this yesterday when asked the question
by the Member for Humber Valley, that we would have a 10,000 hectare spray
program in the Codroy Valley area.
I congratulate the minister for having the program - for
having his spray program. We know our forests are becoming infested again with
the spruce budworm. Scientists from Forestry Canada have told the minister and
his department that there is about to be an outbreak of spruce budworm again in
the Province, and we should be spraying to try to alleviate this problem.
Last year when the minister announced the program that he had
- or he did not have, I do not think, last year - we asked him for some of the
copies of the recommendations from the federal scientists and from his own
staff. We never did get them. We asked again yesterday what recommendations were
made by the federal people and his own staff. The minister keeps telling us that
he will provide them, but it is worthwhile to note that he never does provide
any of these recommendations that are made by the scientists.
We know that the minister himself is completely opposed to
chemical sprays. I guess that is certainly his own opinion. This government is
opposed to chemical sprays. That is their policy; but I would like to see what
the federal scientists recommend before I could agree or disagree with their
policy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Before calling Oral Questions, I would like
to welcome two or three groups of students who are in the public galleries
today.
First, I would like to welcome thirty-four students from
Bayview Heights Academy School, Gambo, from the great and historic district of
Bonavista North. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Green, Mr. Collins,
and chaperons, Mr. Baxter Collins and Jody Beckett.
We would also like to welcome twenty-four students from St.
Pius X Junior High School here in St. John's. They are accompanied by their
teacher, Mr. Gary Rumbolt.
Lastly, we would like to welcome eighteen Grade VI students
from the Pentecostal Elementary School, Bishop's Falls, in the district of
Exploits. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Albert Hodder, Mr. Cecil
White, and Mrs. Melvina White.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The
Capes.
MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
Would the minister confirm that over the last couple of days,
a number of councils have received letters from the minister's department
advising them that the municipal operating grants have been reduced severely?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs.
MR. HOGAN: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that some
councils have received notification that they are reduced and some have received
notification that they are increased.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The
Capes.
MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, the minister is well aware that
these councils have submitted and have had their budgets approved quite some
time ago. I wonder if the minister will tell us now, how he expects councils,
who have been cut severely, to live within their budgets?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs.
MR. HOGAN: Looking at some of the cuts which, fortunately
or unfortunately, are in one of the more resourceful centres, they will balance
budgets with a great deal of difficulty, but the councils in question have been
invited to consult with us both at the regional and at the provincial level, so
that if it is insurmountable in dealing with deficits or anticipated deficits
that we can work something out and be of some assistance to them, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - Capes.
MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, in light of
the fact that communities such as Renews and Fermeuse, Witless Bay and Bay Bulls
have had severe cuts, what does the minister suggest to them? Does he suggest
that they cut the already meagre services, does he suggest that they lay off
people, or does he suggest that in order for them to balance their budgets, some
of them would have to increase the personal tax by anywhere from $30 to $70 per
taxpayer?
Small councils have been cut up to $23,000, so does the
minister suggest that they reduce services, lay off staff or, raise taxes in an
area already devastated by the fishery and other events?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs.
MR. HOGAN: The minister, Mr. Speaker, suggests none of
the above. Come see us and see what we can work out.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek.
MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
responsible for Mines and Energy. Talks between Quebec Hydro and Newfoundland
and Labrador Hydro were suspended or broken off on March 3. Prior to that, my
understanding is that negotiations teams met at least every month. I wonder if
the minister could tell us whether or not talks have resumed and what was the
date of the most recent meeting.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the talks were not broken off
or suspended on March 3. That was the date of the last meeting, and there will
be future meetings when the parties are ready to meet.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek.
AN HON. MEMBER: Come clean with it. 'Rex'.
MR. A. SNOW: I wonder if the minister would update us a
little more, be a little more forthright and give a bit more information to the
people of this Province. Have any other meetings been rescheduled?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, no meetings have been
rescheduled at any time.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek.
MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, why doesn't the minister - I
was about to use the phrase 'coming clean', but. of course, that would be used
much to much with this particular administration. But why doesn't the minister
be more honest and open with the people of this Province and tell the people of
this Province exactly what the status of these negotiations that he suggested
aren't broken off and aren't suspended. They are in limbo, I suppose, are they,
Mr. Speaker? Why doesn't the minister simply acknowledge the fact and tell us
why these negotiations have failed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, the
meetings are ongoing. There is just a little bit of extra time between this last
meeting and the next one, and there is no change.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a
question to the same minister. As the minister knows, there is growing concern
out and about the Province about the fate of the Come-By-Chance Oil Refinery.
Many people are expecting that within a few days there will be hundreds of
people put out of work once again.
I know the minister has sort of, over the last few days,
indicated he didn't want to talk about it too much. People are, indeed, worried,
particularly those who are employed. Can the minister inform the House or say
anything that would put their minds at ease on this particular matter?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am hoping there will be no
reason for Come by Chance refinery to close down. Come by Chance refinery is
continuing to operate right now, and we are going to have meetings in the near
future to have discussions on some things that we want to talk about with the
principals involved.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have known for
some months that there were problems being experienced with the refinery. Let me
ask the minister: Has his department or government been doing anything over the
past number of months to try to keep the refinery operating? It is the only one
in the Province. There is no competition with existing companies. Has the
provincial government been asked for help or have they offered any help?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have not been asked for help
and we haven't had to do anything over the last many months to help the refinery
continue to operate.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. MATTHEWS: The minister is being evasive again, Mr.
Speaker. I don't know why he is trying to keep information from the people of
the Province, as he is doing with the Churchill Falls negotiations and now with
Come by Chance. He is trying to be very silent as if there are no problems.
Let me ask the minister this: Should the current operators of
the refinery pull out or withdraw, does he, as minister, have a strategy in
place to find a new operator for the refinery, and will he make his best efforts
to keep this industry operating in this Province? There aren't too many
industries left in the Province, I say to the minister, since this government
took office three years ago. Will they make every effort to keep this one
operating?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have received no indications
that the present operators are considering pulling out or leaving and I don't
want to speculate on anything related to it.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. MATTHEWS: A final supplementary to the minister, Mr.
Speaker. I would like to refer the minister to Hansard of May 4. The question
was put to the minister by the Member for Green Bay, when he talked about
Cumberland Farms. The minister then said he understood Cumberland Farms
Incorporated had not gone into receivership, and so on. "They expect to be
re-organizing their debts and hope to pay off creditors in the next three
months." He said at that time: "I have learned from a representative of the
company that there is no immediate effect on Come by Chance." Does the minister
still stand by that statement today?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
DR. GIBBONS: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that
there is no direct ownership position between Cumberland Farms and the refinery.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
My question is to the Government House Leader. In the last
few days, the Newfoundland Medical Association have come out against the
proposed incinerator in Long Harbour. Yesterday, the Nurses' Association did
likewise. Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians throughout this Province
are against this proposal in Long Harbour. Now, would the minister confirm to
this House that the government is also against the proposed waste incinerator in
Long Harbour?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there is no proposal registered
with this government. There is no request to this government in terms of any
such incinerator, any such proposal. I understand from the press and members
opposite that there may, at some point in time, be a proposal submitted to this
government. If so, then it will undergo the normal, rigorous environmental
assessment process.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains,
on a supplementary.
MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Would the minister do the right thing and advise the company,
the proponents of this particular waste disposal incinerator for Long Harbour,
that it is no good for them to ask for an EIS on this particular project,
because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are completely against it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
The question was raised by the hon. the Member for Torngat
Mountains to the President of Treasury Board, whom I have recognized.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, some time ago, the Environmental
Assessment Act was introduced into this House. The purpose of introducing that
act - and it is a good act - was to avoid any sudden decision-making, number
one, number two, to make sure that decisions were made on a sound basis and,
number three, to ensure that what is done in this Province would not be harmful
to the environment. So that act was introduced. Government is bound by that act,
Mr. Speaker.
Now then, we are doing the right thing within the intent of
the act and direction of the act, that when a proposal is made to us, we put it
through that process to have a complete environmental examination done. We owe
that to the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains,
on a supplementary.
MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister, that government was bound by the
Collective Agreement Act, also, which they changed.
Mr. Speaker, my next question to the minister is: Would the
minister confirm - Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, I asked the Minister of
Environment and Lands if she would lay on the table of this House the agreement
that was signed between the government and Albright and Wilson with respect to
the clean-up. The minister, at that time said she would not mind talking about
some details of it but she would not let the public see the document. I would
like to ask the minister now if Cabinet has in the last three months made some
changes to the document that was signed with Albright and Wilson and which has
now caused Albright and Wilson not to be particularly concerned about the
clean-up?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely amazing.
Members opposite sat there for seventeen years while phosphorus was polluting
the whole area and said nothing and did nothing and now they ask a question
which speculates on Cabinet making behind the scenes changes to some agreement.
No such thing has ever happened and no such thing will happen. The hon. member
is simply into a little bit of fearmongering and trying to build up a little bit
of controversy about something that he has no indication has ever happened, has
never happened, and nobody in this Province believes happened. He is simply
pulling it out of thin air and trying to get a little bit of attention for
himself. It probably works.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
If hon. members would like for Question Period to continue in
its normal fashion I will allow them to do it.
I recognize the hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a question for the Minister of Health. The most common
injury that people experience and the most common cause of lost time in the
workplace is back injury as the minister is aware. Now, in many cases the only
way that these injuries can be properly diagnosed is through the use of
myelogram X rays and these X rays are done at two hospitals. Now, currently
there are long lineups and long waiting periods for that service as well. Is
government aware of these long lineups and these long waiting periods? And what
is the minister prepared to do about it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there are many varied reasons
why people do not have their back injury attended to. One of them is the
shortage of specialists in certain specific areas and another suggestion which I
thought the hon. member might have been coming with was the role of the
chiropractor in this. There are a whole lot of areas and it would be unfair to
take one and say, this is the problem here, you solve that and you solve the
whole problem. I do not have in my head just how long a waiting list there is.
Maybe the hon. member does have that but I am not sure of any major problem in
any one area. There is a general problem, Mr. Speaker, in the whole area and you
just cannot sort out one specific incident.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main on a
supplementary.
MR. DOYLE: This is not only a matter of prolonged
discomfort and pain to those people who have to wait but it also incurs
considerable cost to the economy as well, I say to the minister.
If it is not diagnosed and treated on a timely basis it can
be of considerable cost to the economy. Is this not a situation, I ask the
Minister of Health, where not spending a few extra dollars on the health care
system is costing far more to the economy through lost work time and through the
fact that we have to pay workers' compensation benefits?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, if it were only that simple it
would have been solved three years ago. Notice I did not say three and a half
years ago, Mr. Speaker, I said it would have been solved three years ago. It is
a complex issue which the department and Workers' Compensation is dealing with.
The fact that the previous administration practically -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind hon. members to my left that I find a lot of loud
talking and I find it difficult to concentrate on either the questions or the
answers so I ask hon. members to please co-operate.
The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out it is a complex
issue and there are many components to it which the Department of Health and
Workers' Compensation are trying to deal with. I should say it is unfortunate
that the previous administration did not take this a little more seriously and
had not driven Workers' Compensation into debt of $164 million. That is going to
have a far greater impact on people's backs and people's arms, and people's legs
in this Province than anything to do with myelograms.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
MR. DOYLE: Let me say to the Minister of Health, no
matter what the situation, people in this Province are facing long delays, long
lineups, long waiting periods in virtually every sector of our health care
system in Newfoundland and Labrador. The reason purely and simply, from what I
have been able to learn and what people are saying, is that the minister and the
government is deliberately downgrading the health care system in this Province
for the sake of the bottom line which is money. Now is the bottom line on the
governments budget of far greater concern to the Minister of Health than the
pain, the anguish, the suffering and the torment that people have to experience,
the thousands of Newfoundlanders who are victims of this health care system, who
have to wait in long lineups in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously
caught in a time warp. He is talking about the things that used to be. When we
took over this health care system, Mr. Speaker, it was in a total mess. It was
in a total mess, Mr. Speaker. There were duplications, there was chaos, there
were leaky roofs, there were blown out windows, there were doors that wouldn't
lock, Mr. Speaker, there were beds that weren't staffed, and I could go on and
on forever. One of the first things we undertook to do was re-organize the
health care system.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it took seventeen years for us to inherit
the mess that we inherited. We can't solve it all overnight. But the people of
this Province can be assured that this government is doing its utmost to try to
deal with some of the problems that we inherited in the health care system, as
in the education system, as in every other system that we inherited from the
previous administration.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo.
MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the
Minister of Education. The minister is aware that again this week the university
announced tuition hikes for Memorial University. 1988-89, the last year of the
former administration, one full year of tuition, two semesters, cost $1,164.
Today, 1992-93 that same full-time two semesters will cost $1,700, a 46 per cent
increase in tuition since 1989.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, is it his plan to shift the
full cost of post-secondary education to students of this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I genuinely thank the member for
asking that question because I have been waiting for it for the past few days. I
thought they would find out last week that memorial announced an increase in
fees.
Mr. Speaker, memorial did announce an increase in fees. Fees
are going up all across this country. But this year, with the possible exception
of Quebec, fees at Memorial University are the lowest in this country, Mr.
Speaker. They are the lowest in Canada. I can quote you statistics about even in
Atlantic Canada. At smaller universities like St. Mary's University, the fees
were $2,150 last year compared to $1,544 in Newfoundland and Labrador. All over
the country, with the possible exception of Quebec, the fees at Memorial
University are the lowest in the country, Mr. Speaker. In Quebec I would think -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, do they want to hear the answer,
or they want to -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
DR. WARREN: Do you want to hear the truth?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER: You are afraid of the true.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, within a year we will be the
lowest in this country because Quebec is going up 20 to 25 per cent a year. They
had a freeze. That is the first point, Mr. Speaker.
The second point I want to make is that the government of
this Province gives more to Memorial University for operating grants per student
than any province in Canada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
DR. WARREN: In 1990-91, Mr. Speaker, we gave, the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador gave Memorial University $8,545 per
student, the next was $8,000 in Quebec, and in Nova Scotia, our sister province,
Mr. Speaker, in the Atlantic region, they gave the universities there $6,217 per
student per year for operating grants. We continue to fund post-secondary
education. We lead the country in our grants to the university.
The third thing, Mr. Speaker, why doesn't he go to Ottawa and
call on his friends, his pals and his colleagues in Ottawa to increase the
student loan program like we did in this Province instead of getting up here,
Mr. Speaker, and trying to make political points. Go to Ottawa and get them to
increase the student loans.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo.
MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Doesn't the minister also realize that the wages in this
Province are the lowest in the country and so we should have the lowest
tuitions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, shameful of the minister!
Doesn't the minister know that 70 per cent of the students in
this Province finance their education through student loans, and prospects for
the summer -
MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) and zero increase in eight
years.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WINSOR: - and prospects for the summer for student
employment - Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Eagle River could restrain himself I
will get on with the question.
MR. MATTHEWS: He is too immature, too childish, as the
Premier said about him.
MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, prospects for the summer for
student employment in this Province are nil. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister
this question:
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I want to remind hon. members from both sides of the House
that it is totally outside of the rules of the House, not within any Standing
Orders that I know of, for a member to be constantly interrupting another member
while that member is: One, answering a question; or, two, asking a question. I
ask hon. members, please, to follow these rules.
If an hon. member were to stretch that and to imagine that
what that member is doing were being done by twenty-five or thirty other
members, that would be quite a situation in this House.
I ask the hon. member, please, to finish his question.
The hon. the Member for Fogo.
MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Bearing in mind that the students of this Province have to
depend on student loans and their inability right now to find jobs, is it now
the policy of this administration to limit university education to students who
can afford to pay the bill? Is that the equality that the minister talks about?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, Memorial University has the
right to increase fees. It did this year. I think on an average they are
collecting about 8 to 10 per cent more, totally on fees, than they did last
year. That is the first point, Mr. Speaker. In some cases I think they are doing
it under a restructured plan where the increase, if you are doing three or four
courses is, perhaps, only 3 or 4 per cent. They have done it under a
restructured plan.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker - I think I would congratulate the
university on another initiative it took this year - it put $500,000, I have
been informed, into a fund for needy students. Mr. Speaker, I may be criticized
for saying this but I believe people who can afford to pay for post-secondary
education in this country, should pay a higher percentage of the cost. Mr.
Speaker, those who cannot afford it should get more help. Memorial University
this year is putting $500,000 into an assistanceship program to help needy
students.
In this Province, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the people that
we believe that post-secondary education is important. Right now the students in
Newfoundland and Labrador pay about 15 per cent of the cost of university
education. There are other provinces moving towards 25 per cent. We are going to
continue high priority for post-secondary so that our students won't have to pay
25 per cent, and we are going to continue to reform the Student Aid Program to
ensure that those who need extra help will get it. We are committed to equality
in this Province. We have demonstrated our commitment by reforming the Student
Loan Program and I urge the federal government, for the first time since 1984,
to change their student aid program and to provide more help to the students in
this Province who need it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo.
MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister: Is the
minister aware that 70 per cent of the students of this Province have to rely on
student loans? We are not talking about students who can afford to pay. We are
talking about students who do not have the ability to pay. So we are not worried
about the other 30 per cent, Mr. Speaker. The question I am asking the minister
is: How is he proposing to help the 70 per cent of students who will now have
exorbitant tuition increases this year?
AN HON. MEMBER: Tell Crosbie to take back the $1 million
from the incinerator.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I wish the member would ask his
friend, who was the Minister of Education, what the Canada Student Loan Program
is? It is a Canada Student Loan Program. We, Mr. Speaker, in our first year in
power, reformed our components of the Student Aid Program. We increased the
scholarships, tripled them. They were here for seventeen years and I don't think
they increased the scholarships once, not one five cents.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
DR. WARREN: We put more money into scholarships, we
reformed the Student Aid Program, our component. I urge the hon. member to call
his friends in Ottawa and ask them to do the same thing we did in this province,
to change the Canada Student Loan Program to provide more money for students who
are needy in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Please call your member. I called the
minister, you call the member this afternoon, the representative in the federal
Cabinet and urge him to get his colleagues to change the student loan program,
Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, that is the only thing that that side has left
now to ask John Crosbie to take over, the university, I say to the minister. He
is responsible for everything else in this Province, what is the minister
responsible for if he is not responsible for the university and education in
this Province? If he is not, he should resign and save the taxpayers his salary
and other things he is getting.
I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for the Government House
Leader -
MR. WALSH: (Inaudible) the $1 million for the
incinerator.
MR. TOBIN: Why don't you jump into the incinerator!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, could you ask the windbag, for
Mount Scio - Bell Island, to be quiet please? The windbag?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the hon. member that it is not parliamentary to call
somebody a windbag, but I shall also follow his instructions to ask the hon.
member to please follow the rules of the House.
The Opposition House Leader.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I apologize for calling the hon. member a windbag, Mr.
Speaker. I apologize for that. Mr. Speaker, a week or so ago when I raised the
issue of the Roddickton crab plant and the suspicious conditions surrounding
that of the fire, of the lease, of the endorsed cheques without the authority of
the council and so on, the Premier on one occasion rose in the Legislature and
said that he was a bit concerned about the things that I had said, and that he
was going to refer the matter to the Superintendent of the R.C.M.P. After that
exchange, the people of Roddickton wrote the Premier asking for an inquiry into
that full situation of the Roddickton crab plant and all the surrounding
problems.
I would like to ask the President of Treasury Board, the
Government House Leader, did the Premier turn the matter over to the
Superintendent of the R.C.M.P., and is government looking at a full-scale
inquiry into that matter?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Council.
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not sure of the answer to that question. I will try to
find out as quickly as possible.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia
West.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Education as well, and I hope that the Minister of Education will be
honest in his response. It is rather frustrating when you know there is a good
chance he will not tell you the truth.
But in any case when the Minister talks about the
consultants, the two independent consultants to whom he referred, but we flushed
them out, that they are employees of his department, who did a study on the
students assistants needs in this Province, let me ask the minister this: What
was the mandate given to the employees of your department to do the study for
you? With the cap on expenditures in the budget with your department will the
minister admit, that it was not a needs study that was done, but indeed a
re-allocation study?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, last Friday in this House, I
explained that the two consultants were consultants from the Department of
Education. I said it again earlier in the week, Mr. Speaker, there were two
consultants from the Department of Education.
He may be surprised to hear this but the guidelines that we
gave the two consultants, Mr. Speaker, were the guidelines developed by the
Department of Education in 1987. Do they remember 1987? Who was the minister?
The guidelines that we gave the department to examine, to go out and to study
student assistants, were guidelines developed in 1987 and the hon. minister-
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
DR. WARREN: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. Mary's
- The Capes, can get up - I have a copy of the guidelines here, maybe he can
describe the ones used, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.
MR. TOBIN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia
West, on a point of order.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I find it almost a daily
occurrence when you have to rise in this House and correct the information given
by the Minister of Education. The fact of the matter is, and it should not be
allowed to stand, what the minister just said. The point of order that I want to
make is I want the record to show that in 1987 it was the Department of Social
Services that was responsible for student assistants in this Province, and not
the Department of Education.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
No point of order. The hon. member took a -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
I want to remind hon. members that one of the cardinal
principles of any House is that everybody speaking tells the truth. That is one
of the fundamental principles of all hon. members. Hon. members should not be
making that accusation continuously, that somebody is not telling the truth.
Because hon. members are under obligation to believe hon. members, when a member
speaks, that he is supposed to be speaking the truth. If an hon. member can
prove that it is otherwise it is very serious.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I would ask hon. members please to remain in their places
while I am going down through the routine order. It makes it very difficult. I
do not know who is standing. I do not know if hon. members are standing to do
something. If hon. members would please cooperate....
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek.
MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to
present on behalf of 3,676 residents of Labrador City and Wabush -
AN HON. MEMBER: How many?
MR. A. SNOW: Three thousand six hundred and seventy-six
residents of Labrador City and Wabush, the district of Menihek, Mr. Speaker,
this is the prayer of the petition:
"We, the residents of Labrador West, believe in the right of
students with mental handicaps to be fully integrated into the regular
classrooms of our school systems. To continue to do this, as we have for the
past 12 years, we must maintain the student assistants positions that enable
these students to grow and learn beside their peers. We call upon Dr. Phil
Warren and the Department of Education to maintain the same level of funding
that is already established in this area, so that our students can continue to
have a quality education" in our Province, in our area.
Mr. Speaker, the people of western Labrador -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is very concerned. I can only bring it to hon.
members' attention. The job of the Chair is to ensure that the Standing Orders
of the House are followed. I hear the hon. members petition. To me, it does not
sound like it is in the right form. Hon. members are either going to have to
suggest that they do not want petitions in the right form - but the Chair has to
remind hon. members. Because petitions are very important. They are supposed to
be -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member for Burin -
Placentia West, please, to show courtesy to the Chair as well. When the Chair is
standing, nobody is supposed to make any comment. It is a very important matter.
It is a tradition of Parliament that petitions must have a prayer, and they are
supposed to be presented to the House, and not to a department and not to a
particular member. That is for a very specific reason. Because a petition is
supposed to have a prayer, and is not meant to be debated.
The Chair just presents it to hon. members because I have
noticed in the last little while that seldom do we have a petition that meets
the requirements of the House. But if hon. members want that, that is fine by
the Chair.
The hon. the Member for Menihek.
MR. A. SNOW: I request leave to present this petition on
behalf of the 3,676 residents of western Labrador.
Do I have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. A. SNOW: It is the same petition, different names, of
what I presented last week, earlier this week.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. HEARN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The
Capes on a point of order.
MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago in this
House we had a discussion on this very topic, about presenting petitions. I
think it was made quite clear and accepted by the whole House at the time, that
most people who are sending petitions in to us have no understanding whatsoever
of the need for a special or specific prayer.
These people send in a petition asking the members, all of
us, to present to the House their request. How they list that request is in
varied ways.
At the time we had a thorough discussion. I think members
generally agreed that if petitions came in with the right intentions, that
generally we would accept the petitions. I think consequently it would be only
fair that leave be given, as we have done in the past for every petition, even
though some of them had perhaps no semblance at all to anything even in relation
to the House.
MR. SPEAKER: I just again want to quote to hon. members -
and the Chair has to ensure that the rules are followed - that there is an onus
on members. We realize that the population does not know, but members have to
instruct them.
When a petition comes that is not in the right form,
Beauchesne states very clearly that it should be sent back, and with the right
wording. The Chair is only doing it so that there is no precedence, as long as
hon. members agree, but the Chair's responsibility is one it recognizes. Because
we do it today does not mean that it is going to be for all time. The Chair has
to do it every time that it recognizes that a petition is not in the right form.
I should say, the responsibility is with the member to say
each time, when a petition is not in the right form, to tell the House before he
starts speaking to the petition, and ask for the permission of the House to
present the petition.
That is the correct procedure. I tell hon. members that if it
is not done, the House is just going to deteriorate and it is not going to at
all be what a House of Parliament should be.
The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Just a brief point of order, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, it is obvious that your ruling is absolutely
correct; but I wonder if we could agree that the hon. member's time did not
start when he started his presentation, and that we could start the time over
again to give him the five minutes?
MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. member again,
the House just wants to make it clear to hon. members where it stands with those
matters, and hon. members would find, if next year one of them is in a position
of Speaker, he would be sorry that I did not speak to the procedure.
The hon. the Member for Menihek.
MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the 3,600 people - almost
3,700 people - who have signed this petition as residents of Western Labrador,
to pressure this government, point out to this government, the inequality that
is occurring in western Labrador.
The residents of western Labrador, led by educators in
western Labrador, and parents of handicapped children, established an
integration of children in our educational system in Labrador West that has been
the envy of the country - not just this Province, but the envy of this country.
The educators were recognized by winning national awards.
They were recognized by winning provincial awards. The parents have been
recognized, who were the prime movers in establishing this program in western
Labrador, but yet they were also followed by the residents who supported it
financially and morally in western Labrador, because the people of western
Labrador paid for the increased cost of integration of these children in the
educational system. They paid, Mr. Speaker.
Hundreds of people have come up to me from western Labrador,
when I was back this weekend, talking to me about this. Children who are being
affected, parents of the children who have been affected, teachers, student
assistants, who have been affected. Most of the student assistants who spoke to
me about it did not even express the thought of losing their job. They expressed
their disfavour with the idea that the children were going to be losing
something with which they had become accustomed - that is an access to
education.
They were terribly disappointed in the Minister of Education,
from whom they had expected so much. They had expected so much from him because
he had promised equality to them. They found that this year his department
proposed a 75 per cent cut to the student assistants in the Integrated Board,
and almost a 50 per cent cut to the student assistants in the Roman Catholic
Board.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these student assistants, what they were
telling me is that yes, they have a concern for their own livelihood, but they
have more of a concern for those people who are going to be directly affected,
and that is the students. They feel that they want - and I am speaking on behalf
of the student assistants themselves now when I say this - they feel that these
children are the ones that should be looked after, Mr. Speaker. They feel that
both the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance are wrong when they
sit side by side and cheek to cheek, Mr. Speaker, and they draw up their budgets
and say, and I quote what the Minister of Finance said in the House of Assembly
here last week when he said on June 8 that if he could, he said, 'I would cut
more if I had the chance.' They are disappointed and disgusted with that. What
they want, Mr. Speaker, what the people of western Labrador want, what the
residents of western Labrador want is more funding to establish and maintain the
best educational system in this Province. They want this Province to level the
education up, not down, Mr. Speaker.
And I want to quote, Mr. Speaker, one leader in our
municipalities, one leader. He says: It is beyond my wildest dreams why a
government that is fighting for fairness and equality in the Canadian
Constitution could force its own people to accept anything less. Yes, Mr.
Warren, we are talking about your decision to cut funding to the Labrador West
student assistants program.
Mr. Speaker, that person has written a letter to Dr. Warren,
the Premier, and myself - that union leader in western Labrador, Mr. Speaker, a
leader of one of our local unions has expressed his disfavour, and so have 3,600
people of western Labrador expressed their disfavour by signing a petition
urging this government to reassess its decision on the proposed cutbacks on the
student assistants. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the minister respond to this
petition, and react favourably to the request of these residents of western
Labrador.
MR. WARREN: You have to stand up now. Stand up now.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia
West.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it looks like the Minister of
Education is not about to stand.
MR. WINSOR: He is playing his game again.
MR. TOBIN: It looks like the Minister of Education is
about to play a game again, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Education has been in
this House for three years, and I have been here for just about eleven years,
and I have always seen whoever presented the petition, followed by the minister.
But in the case of the Minister of Education he refuses to take his place again.
So I hope I can entice him with my comments to come to his feet.
Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in many issues on the floor
of this Legislature since 1982. I have had the opportunity to speak on many
issues, but I have never seen an issue as sensitive as the present one, and I
have never seen a minister or a government demonstrate in such an uncaring
fashion as this Minister of Education has.
Now the Minister of Education has been in this House standing
up, and on CBC television, it was played out to me by a parent from Marystown
last night, the Minister of Education talked about two independent consultants.
The Minister of Finance clearly demonstrated the arrogance the other day when I,
in my statement in this House, said to the Minister of Health: Who is more
responsible for cutting this budget than you? And the Minister of Finance said:
I would cut it more if I had a chance. Now if that is not an attack on the
disabled, on the disadvantaged, and on the special need students of this
Province I don't know what it is.
I asked the Minister of Education today in Question Period
and he refused to answer the question then. He refused to come clean. He refused
to give the details. He chose rather to hide behind his attacks and blame
everything on Ottawa. It is a wonder, Mr. Chairman, that he doesn't blame this
on Ottawa. It is a wonder the Minister of Education doesn't blame this on
Ottawa. I asked the Minister of Education and I hope he will address it. As a
matter of fact, I hope that what I am about to say will now bring him to his
seat, because I am going to make an accusation that I believe to be true. I
believe the Minister of Education instructed his employees, two from his
department, to go around this Province, instructed them that there is a cap -
well, he didn't have to because they all knew it - on the education in other
departments, there is a cap on the dollars to be spent for student assistants as
approved in the budget. He instructed them to do a study not based on the needs
of the special needs children, but to do a reallocation of student assistants in
this Province. They didn't even visit some of the schools, didn't speak, as I
understand it. The job that they did was not a good job, and I have been told
that by educators, and educators just as good, I would suggest, and more caring
and concerned for the people than the Minister of Education is.
Over the years, in Labrador West in particular, they have
built a very sound, very effective and needed -
MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).
MR. TOBIN: Let me say this. I won't get distracted by the
Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. - and needed policy and program to
deal with special needs. The Minister of Education gave two employees
instructions to go out and dismantle what had been put in place over the years
by the people in Labrador West and the people of the Burin Peninsula. Those were
clear instructions given by the Minister of Education to dismantle the hard
work, to dismantle the model role, to dismantle the model program that was put
in place by the men and women of Labrador West, and later with the people of the
Burin Peninsula. There is a cap, I suggest, on the spending for student
assistants in this Province. What could they study? They could have studied
nothing, except the reallocation and the dismantlement of the program where it
has been effective.
Instead, what the minister should have done was seek ways to
improve it in Labrador West, on the Burin Peninsula and on the West Coast, and
look at ways to improve it throughout Newfoundland -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. TOBIN: - and put in place the number of student
assistants that are needed.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.
MR. TOBIN: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister
of Education, in the name of all that is good, to stand up and address this
petition.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members who have spoken
have made some good points. This is a very important program. Student assistants
play a major role in the education of students with problems and disabilities in
this Province. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we found in a study that was done by the
consultants from the Department of Education that many student assistants are
important parts of teams, the morale is good, in many cases, and in the future,
I am sure, we are going to build on this program.
Mr. Speaker, what the study did find, though, was that there
were areas of the Province where more student assistants were needed and areas
where, in accordance with the criteria developed in 1987, we had too many. Mr.
Speaker, using these criteria, we found, for example - let me just give a few
examples. Talk about equality! What are we going to do for the students in areas
such as Green Bay where there are 45 per cent under. Mr. Speaker, what are we
going to do with the students in Nova Consolidated Board, 31 per cent under;
Avalon North, 47 per cent under; Avalon Consolidated, 11 per cent under; and Bay
d'Espoir, 3 per cent? Labrador East are going to get 17 per cent more in
accordance with this study, and on and on it goes, Conception Bay South, 46 per
cent more than they are getting.
Mr. Speaker, there are many inequalities in this system. This
study found out that there were areas of the Province where the need is for
increased numbers, because student assistants are assigned on the basis of need.
Now, we have received that study, and I am not going to try to indicate that
there are not going to be some changes. There are going to be some changes in
the student aid program. We cannot let these gross inequalities that exist
continue, and we cannot find the $15 or $20 million more that we need to bring
it up to, perhaps, the best in the country. We are putting $5 million into it at
the present time. We are going to try to grant the number of student assistants
based on need. Let me get back to Labrador. Labrador has had a good program of
student assistants. When the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes was the minister
he knows the program and he knows they got extra money. They got extra money
over and above what anybody else got in the Province. I find it very difficult
to say to Conception Bay South, to Bay d'Espoir, to Green Bay, and on and on, to
areas such at that, they should get extra over and above what they need in
Labrador, according to the criteria, and they cannot get any or they cannot get
enough. This government believes in equality of opportunity and we will fight to
provide it. Mr. Speaker, we have to rationalize the system. In Labrador West, in
J.R. Smallwood Collegiate, I was told they have 561 students and fifty-five
teachers. I am told they have four teachers and fifteen or sixteen student
assistants, that is nineteen or twenty people for fifteen students. They have
nineteen or twenty full-time adults for fifteen students. Now, we cannot provide
that level of service throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to provide
what is a reasonable standard of care and we will do that, Mr. Speaker. We
cannot in health care, in social services, in education, in transportation,
provide the Cadillac of Canada but we will provide for every Newfoundland
student who has need a level of service which is a reasonable level. This is
what government is going to do. We are not going to perpetuate the inequalities
of the past. We are not going to let the inequalities of where you got student
assistants if you were in a certain area. We are not going to let that continue.
We are going to provide a fair treatment for every student who needs student
assistants in this Province irrespective of where that student lives, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia
West.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, I say to the
House, signed by twelve parents from Rushoon. It is not as the Speaker outlined,
but they wrote and asked me if I would present it in the House so I would like
to have a couple of minutes to deal with the issue. It is the same issue. These
are parents of special needs children, and the parents' signatures are on the
back. I am asking leave to present the petition on their behalf.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair can only again say, that as far as
the Chair is concerned, it is not a petition, it is a letter to the hon. member.
There is great dissertation made in this House by that kind of petition, but
this is the problem hon. members get themselves into when they accept certain
petitions and don't accept other petitions. This is clearly not a petition, it
is a letter, but if hon. members want to present it -
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave. Pass it back to the hon. member.
The Chair said there was no leave granted for the petition.
The hon. member might not have heard.
MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia
West on a point of order.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there was a 3,600-name petition
just presented from Labrador West by leave of this House. Now, the number I have
is twelve, from Rushoon, but they are twelve caring parents, as well. I would
ask the Member for Exploits, the former President of the NTA, the Minister of
Employment, if he would reconsider and give me leave on behalf of the educators,
teachers and student assistants in this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What happened here was
that a petition was presented from Labrador West. It was obviously a petition -
although it was not in proper form - but to my mind it was obviously a petition
meant to be gone over in the House of Assembly and so on. We have run into this
a number of times where I have always given leave. Conversely, now what we have
is a private letter to the Member for Burin - Placentia West asking him to give
them some help, which is not at all the same as the previous petition that was
presented.
It is not a matter of numbers. The member is misleading the
House. It has nothing to do with the numbers. If there were a petition to this
House with three signatures on it, it would be totally acceptable, and so on.
This happens to be simply a letter to the hon. gentleman bringing a matter to
his attention, and asking him for his help. That is all it is. It is, by no
stretch of the imagination, a petition to the House, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I will allow the
hon. member to make one more submission.
The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board
says if you had three signatures attached to this, and the appropriate
resolution (inaudible) to present it to the House, I would probably be able to
do it. Now, for too long we have seen that practice happen in this House in the
past, where you get your colleagues and your secretaries in the office to sign
it. I could have done that too, probably. But I wanted -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TOBIN: I am speaking to this point of order. I wanted
to come down here, very genuinely, and ask all men and women in this House to
consider this as the wishes of the people of Rushoon, the parents of special
needs children, who are concerned about the action of the Minister of Health. I
didn't think that was asking a lot. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I am very
disappointed that the former President of the NTA, the Member for Exploits, Mr.
Grimes, refused to give permission for me to present this petition. I am just
totally disgusted, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I again point out to hon. members that it is of no value to
the House for hon. members to be protesting about presenting petitions. Our
rules are clear.
MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TOBIN: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: It doesn't advance the cause of the House
for hon. members to be asking and begging to present a petition. The rules are
clear in both our Standing Orders and those of Beauchesne. Hon. members should
be trying to educate their electorate about -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: They should be trying to educate their
electorate as to how a petition should be. It serves no purpose at all in this
House for hon. members to be debating in such a manner as to want to present a
petition.
There is no point of order. Hon. members should try, as I
said, and get their petitions in right form, as far as the Chair is concerned.
Orders of the Day
MR. BAKER: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia
West, on a point of order.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister gave notice in the
House the other day that we were going to have Private Members' Day on
Wednesday, which is traditional in the House. Motion 1 does not deal with
Private Members' Day, today being Wednesday. I am not sure what the minister is
up to. I sincerely hope he is not looking for leave to change the Order Paper
after refusing leave to the parents of Rushoon.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the member is perfectly right.
This ordinarily is Private Members' Day, and it is government's Private Members'
Day. We called the Private Members' motion by the Member for Pleasantville.
However, we would now prefer instead to go on and try to finish up some business
of the House, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, the Chair did not get what the
President of Treasury Board said. If he would repeat the last part again. I am
sorry.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely
right. This is Private Members' Day, Wednesday. It is government Private
Members' Day. We alternate back and forth, by custom. I did call on Monday the
resolution by the Member for Pleasantville; however, since that time, we have
decided that we prefer to go on with the normal government business and
relinquish our Private Members' Day on this occasion.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia
West.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the President of Treasury
Board: Is he looking for leave to do that?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask for leave. I
assumed that it is government's day, and then government made the decision in
terms of how it would use it's Private Members' Day. That is the way it has been
going all year and in past years. I did not ask for leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, hon. members raised
this point, I think, a couple of weeks ago. Very often in this House, when
government wanted to move on with government business, particularly when the
Private Members' motion was from the government side - and hon. members will
realize that it is Private Members' Day, in theory, that is; but in practice in
this House we have rotated, a resolution from the Opposition side and a
resolution from the government side. Whether or not we accept that, that is what
has happened in practice, though in theory it is correct, it is a Private
Members' Day.
Whenever we have gone on to do this kind of thing, to do
government members' business, that has been agreed to by all members of the
House, and we have done.
What we are asking now is whether there is agreement. If
there is not agreement, then we have to do something else. If there is no
agreement, then the Chair will act on the instructions of members as to what
else they want done.
I have not taken my place yet - so that is the procedure.
The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, today, obviously, is Private
Members' Day and you do need leave of the House in order to proceed with the
business of the day.
I would like to ask the minister, if you want us to agree to
leave - we will agree to give leave, but I would like to ask the President of
Treasury Board if he would reconsider giving me a couple of minutes leave to
present this on behalf of the (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has made that ruling, and we are not going to go
back to it. The Chair has made the ruling. No leave was granted, and I am afraid
that would bring the House down to I don't know what level if we started doing
that.
The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I am looking for an
interpretation. You said, 'No leave was granted'. What does that mean,
specifically?
MR. SPEAKER: If there is no leave granted, then it would
appear that the Chair would prefer that we do those things by agreement. That
would be the preference of the Chair but, quite obviously, if there is no
private member's motion to be dealt with, because there has to be a motion
given, and in our House it has been the procedure of the government to give
notice of the motion on Monday. Since the motion that is given notice of cannot
be debated because the private member, the member with that motion, is not here,
the government is now asking that we go on to government business. Of course,
that is the logical procedure to follow, and that may be done without leave.
The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, every time on Private
Members' Day in this House of Assembly, since I have been here, for twelve
years, that the private member has given up his right for his motion, it was
done by leave of the House. That is my understanding of the precedent of this
House.
I want to know if my understanding of the precedent can be
researched and answered, and if that is the case and the government is asking
for leave, let them ask for leave. They have not asked for leave yet, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I think the Chair has stated the precedent
of this House is that the government, in this situation, would ask for leave,
but again, our procedures have changed and we have not changed the procedures
accordingly. For example, the procedure with Private Members' Day, has changed.
In the past, we have always had our Private Members' Days, the Motions, all on
the first days so Notice of Motion was given on the first day. We always had the
Notice of Motion.
Under the procedure that we now have, we do not have the
Notice of Motion, because we have changed the procedure. We have not changed our
rules accordingly. So, all the Chair is looking at now, is the logic of the
matter, that no notice was given, but I will take further submission from
members.
The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.
MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I find it fairly confusing,
because we are talking about no leave being given. I am not under the impression
that any leave has been requested; I don't believe the Government House Leader
requested leave to depart from Private Members' Day and go on with government
business. I don't think that leave was requested, number one.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. HEARN: Secondly, if the government member, who was
supposed to present his resolution, the Member for Pleasantville, today, is not
here or cannot present his resolution, I presume that we would only be too glad
to present one of ours, number seven, is from the Member for Kilbride, an
extremely important resolution; number eight, from the Member for St. John's
East Extern, an extremely important resolution and we have number ten from Burin
- Placentia West, an extremely important resolution, and we can go on. So, if
the government does not want to proceed with its Private Member's resolution,
undoubtedly, we would be willing to proceed with one of ours. But I say, before
we get into any of that, the Government House Leader has not even requested
leave to depart from the regular business.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am sorry I missed some of the proceedings, I was in the
common room, expecting a call on the Canada/France situation.
What we have to be careful of here is setting a precedent,
and we all remember just a few short weeks ago when we were in a similar
situation, that the Member for St. John's East would not give leave and we
adjourned the House. If you remember that member did not give leave on one
Private Member -
AN HON. MEMBER: We had agreed between us.
MR. MATTHEWS: We had agreed between us, the Government
House Leader and myself, but no one had discussed it with the Member for St.
John's East, he denied leave, and consequently, we adjourned very early. We
adjourned one day to go to the waterfront to welcome back the fleet, and I
believe, the next Wednesday -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. MATTHEWS: Well, it is a farce, but I am not talking
about the farce. There are a lot of farces, Mr. Speaker.
The point is, it is customary that the Government House
Leader would ask for leave to forego Private Members' Day to continue or to
pursue government business. Now, that is what we are talking about here and I
think the best thing that could happen now is for the Government House Leader to
do that and we can get on with doing the business that the government so badly
wants to do.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I agree with the Opposition House Leader. That is exactly
what should happen now; however, he was out of the House, and as the acting
House Leader indicated, no such leave would be forthcoming. That is why we
proceeded the way we did.
Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to proceed with
government business.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President -
MR. TOBIN: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia
West, to the point of order.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader
misled the House that time in his statement. When I stood - and I don't know if
Your Honour heard me or not - when I stood, I said we were quite prepared to
give leave, all we wanted was for the member to ask for it. That is what was
said.
MR. SPEAKER: Has the President of Treasury Board asked
for leave of the House? Does the President of Treasury Board have leave of the
House?
AN HON. MEMBER: Definitely.
MR. TOBIN: Did he ask for it? He never asked for it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have heard, during the last couple of months, quite a
number of points made by members on both sides of the House with respect to the
Estimates, and I will attempt to answer all these points or to make a comment on
them, but first, I think I should attempt to summarize the points that have been
made.
MR. SPEAKER: The Minister, speaking now, closes the
debate.
DR. KITCHEN: Thank you very much. In
summary, Mr.
Speaker, I would say that members opposite stated quite clearly that they wanted
taxes reduced, or at least, not raised; and equally vociferously, they wanted
government to spend more money on every conceivable thing that would crop up,
and equally vociferously, they wanted the deficit not altered. In other words,
they wanted the impossible. There was one exception to that, and that member is
not here today. He wanted the deficit increased, expenditures increased, and
taxation lowered. Now, that is even more impossible than the others.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the only way we can come out of this is to
approve the present Budget, and I so move, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of
the Whole on Ways and Means, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
MR. CHAIRMAN (L. Snow): Order, please!
On motion, that the Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means
rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the
Chair.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to inform -
MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. We had two people standing. The
hon. the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, the Member for Trinity - Bay de
Verde.
MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on
Ways and Means have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to
report some progress and ask leave to sit again.
On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to
sit again presently by leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform Your Honour and other hon.
members that I have received a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant Governor.
MR. SPEAKER: To the hon. the Minister of Finance: I, the
Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland transmit estimates of sums
required for the public service of the Province for the year ending March 31,
1993 by way of further supply, and in accordance with the provisions with the
Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.
Sgd.: _______________________________
Frederick A. Russell, Lieutenant Governor
The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message be
referred to a Committee of the Whole on Supply.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of
the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
MR. CHAIRMAN (L. Snow): Order, please!
The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I move that the total contained
in the estimates be carried and that a resolution be adopted to give effect to
the same.
MR. WINDSOR: What exactly are we passing here, I ask the
President of Treasury Board? This is the budget document itself? This is not
supplementary supply or anything additional to it?
MR. BAKER: No.
MR. WINDSOR: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On motion, Budget Estimates, total heads, carried, and a
resolution be adopted to give effect to same.
MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.
MR. HEWLETT: Before we conclude debate on this, there is
a matter that came to my attention - under a money bill I believe I can bring
matters before the House. During lunch hour, I was told, in my own district we
have a marine service centre and that throughout the Province there are thirteen
operators of equipment in marine service centres being laid off this summer,
very late-coming news, just as the House of Assembly is closing. On behalf of my
constituents and the other operators in marine centres across the Province, I
would like to register my concern that the centre for Triton, for instance, is a
$7 million facility. Last year they had a staff of three people which was
reduced to two. Now, for three months of this year, it will be reduced to one
person. You have a multi-million dollar facility, literally millions of dollars
worth of boats, and, Mr. Chairman, I do believe this matter should be brought to
the attention of the House.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
I would just remind the hon. member that we have passed the
Estimates and that there is no room for debate at this point in time on that
matter.
On motion that the Committee rise, report progress and ask
leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.
MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have
considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they
have passed the amount of $3,000,658,300 contained in the Estimates of Supply,
and ask leave to sit again.
On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to
sit again presently by leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the
Committee of the Whole on Supply with respect to the Estimates, 1992/1993,
together with the resolution and a bill consequent thereto be referred to a
Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means, and that Mr. Speaker do now leave the
Chair.
On motion that the House resolve itself into Committee of the
Whole on Ways and Means to consider a resolution and a bill related thereto. Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!
Resolution
"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for
the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service
for the financial year ending March 31, 1993, the sum of $2,010,461,600."
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the
resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask
leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de
Verde.
MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have
considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that it has
adopted a certain resolution, and ask that a bill be introduced to give effect
to the same.
MR. SPEAKER: The Committee of the Whole have considered
the matters to them referred, have directed the Chairman of the Committee to
report that it has adopted a certain resolution and recommends that a bill be
introduced to give affect to the same.
On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty
Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For
The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1993 And For Other Purposes Relating To The
Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its
title be as on the Order Paper.
MR. BAKER: Order 5, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order 5.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor
Corporation Act, 1973". (Bill No. 9).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is to a large
extent a routine bill, although there are certain aspects of it that may not be
quite so routine. Clause 1 is part of the routine part. We are just amending the
definition of alcoholic liquor to make sure that - no, this is the non-routine
part, sorry.
Up until now this
section has prescribed the amount of
alcoholic content that must be in liquor before it is able to be regulated by
the Newfoundland Liquor Licensing Board, or by the Liquor Corporation. Now, what
we are proposing to do is to eliminate the specific content that is required to
make all alcoholic beverages come under the control of government. Right now we
cannot, for example, make regulations concerning -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I think hon. members do not know which bill we are doing. It
is Order 5, which is Bill No. 9.
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
DR. KITCHEN: So in Clause 1: what we are doing here is
taking away the specific content of alcohol that must be in a beverage before it
is classified as alcohol, and thereby subject to the regulation of the Liquor
Corporation. That will enable us to make regulations for the sale of what is
presently appearing in some shops as non-alcoholic beverages which are really .5
per cent beer and things like that. We want to regulate that because we feel
that under certain circumstances this may be habit forming for children because
it is accessible now. Any two year old can go in a supermarket now and pick up
his can of beer. It is not really beer according to our standards but it bears
the label, looks very much like beer and it has an alcoholic content. We do not
want these things to start so we want to regulate that. That is the purpose of
Clause 1, to enable us to do that. Right now we have no legislative power to
attempt to control what could be an abuse although I do not believe it is much
of an abuse at the present time but that is mainly because it has not been
pushed hoping that we will not make the change.
What we are really doing in Clause 2 is amending the
definition of spirits to include vodka, which is basically not a very major
point. Then we are going to amend
Section 6 of the act so that each member of
the board of directors of the corporation will hold office for three years and
to provide for the appointment of the president of the board to hold office
during pleasure. Then we are going to amend Clause 3 and 4 to enable the
accounts of the Liquor Corporation to be audited by private firms rather than
only by the Auditor General. The corporation feels they will save some money by
this route and also the Auditor General wants to get out of the detailed
auditing of these corporations and to concentrate on a higher level of auditing
so that the Auditor General's department does not get into all this detailed
auditing which can be done more cheaply by a private firm.
That is basically what we are attempting to do, Mr. Speaker.
We are also proposing to amend
Section 33 of the Act so that people who buy
things from the Liquor Corporation can pay in a manner that the Liquor
Corporation provides. Right now what is in the Act is rather restrictive and
they have for some time been using other methods but we need the Act changed to
make these methods appropriate.
Clause 8, we are going to amend
Section 45 of the Act so that
- this maybe of interest to members, so that you can have some control tasting
in liquor stores. The Liquor Corporation wants to run tasting of certain wines
and they are going to charge under certain conditions so if you have your finger
up in the right place you can go in there and test your wine. They want to get
into that in certain liquor stores. Right now that is prevented by the law.
There will be a charge for that, just a charge to cover the cost as I understand
it.
AN HON. MEMBER: It is only for Liberals thought.
DR. KITCHEN: Liberals do not drink you see.
That is basically what we are trying to do. Most of it is
routine except for the two substantive items, one, to get the auditing done by
private firms and also to get the regulation of .5 or other alcoholic beverages
under the control of the Liquor Corporation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.
MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, just to take a few moments of
the House. This is not earth shattering except that Clause 1 leaves us with some
concern. I would like to ask the minister a question or two on it. He is saying
that it would put all alcoholic beverages under regulation so the Liquor
Corporation would thereby control all of that. I guess the question is therefore
would liquor taxes therefore be applied to these low alcoholic content
beverages? The minister himself said there is no abuse there now and I would
submit to the minister that a young child would drown before he could get
intoxicated on the amount of alcohol contained in these beverages. I do not
think there is any abuse nor is there much possibility that there could but that
is not my concern.
My concern here is, does this now mean that those beverages
will be subject to liquor taxes which are substantially higher than sales tax
imposed on those beverages now. I assume we are talking here about Haig Ale and
this sort of thing which is sold in stores and which is of low alcoholic
content. Will that now be subject to alcohol taxes? That is the question I would
like to ask the minister. Another question is, what impact does this have on the
sale of beer and wine in stores? There is considerable movement now to sell - we
have beer now sold in convenience stores, for example, and there is a movement
afoot; there is some pressure, some desire on the part of the public, to have
wine sold as well in convenience stores, which is common throughout many parts
of Canada and certainly the United States. It is pretty convenient on a Sunday
afternoon - you cannot sell even beer on Sunday afternoons in Newfoundland, but
if you go to Florida you can run into any drug store, any supermarket, any time
of day or night, and pick up beer and wine. You cannot get other alcoholic
beverages. Those are controlled in much the same manner as they are controlled
here.
I just ask the minister: What impact would it have on the
potential to allow beer and wines - beer is already sold - but to allow wines in
there. Does it impact on that, or does it simply say that it gives government
right of regulation? I believe they have the right of regulation now, and it
extends it to lower alcoholic beverages. Certainly wines I am talking about
would be high enough content that they are regulated now.
The
section dealing with members of the board for three years
- I just want to comment that previously the board held office during pleasure.
Now we are saying that it will be for a fixed term. Is the minister saying
therefore that government intends to honour those fixed terms? This government,
in past, has dismissed boards that have been appointed for fixed terms, before
their term expired. The minister is aware of that, I am sure. In fact, the
minister was involved in some of them. Many members of boards and agencies were
dismissed forthright, summarily, by this government shortly after it came into
office, even though they had been appointed for a two or a three or a five year
term, and their term had only just begun or was only partially completed.
AN HON. MEMBER: Name one.
MR. WINDSOR: I can name many.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER: Hydro board?
MR. WINDSOR: The Hydro Board is one of them.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: Yes.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fixed term.
MR. WINDSOR: Wasn't fixed term, the Hydro Board? No.
Okay. I thought that Hydro was a fixed term. Maybe it was not. Maybe it was
during pleasure.
Well I know The Liquor Licensing Board was a fixed term, and
the Minister of Finance simply sent them a letter saying, your services are not
longer required; thank you very much; even though they had on file letters from
government appointing them for a fixed term. There are many more like that. So
maybe the minister would like to address that.
I am a little concerned about Clause 5, that The Liquor
Corporation now can get into the retail business, into selling books and
magazines, and special bottle openers. Are you talking about bottle openers that
are not readily available, and therefore they are only available in specialty
shops? Maybe they are only available at Living Rooms on Water Street, which
happens to have a lot of items such as this that you will not find anywhere
else, and that is what makes them viable. That is the business they are in. They
are in the specialty item business. Now we are taking this market away from
those retailers, those specialty stores that provide something that is
different, and charge a price for it.
I am not sure that The Liquor Corporation should be into
this. This is retailing. Now we are getting into the retail business. It is bad
enough that the Minister of Development funds them. Now the government is going
to enter into it themselves, through The Liquor Corporation. Convenience is one
thing, but I do not know that this is the sort of thing in which government
should be involved.
Controlled tasting of liquor - now that is an interesting
concept. I understand that the real rationale for that is that the Liquor Board
does its control tasting in the board room that they have over the liquor store
at The Murray Premises. That is where they always did it, and that legally
speaking they were breaking the law, because the law says: No alcoholic
beverages shall be consumed on the premises of Newfoundland Liquor Corporation.
The wine tasting, which is a legitimate function of the wine tasting board - a
wine tasting board, by the way, is the board itself. They appoint themselves as
a wine tasting board, and they have a merry old time.
I was unfortunately never invited, while I was Minister of
Finance, to one of these wine tastings. I think the board went to France and
actually did their tasting over there, while I was Minister of Finance. So I
never had the pleasure of going to The Murray Premises, but I have heard some
interesting stories about the wine tasting parties at The Murray Premises.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WINDSOR: I think it should be brought in. I think we
should do it in here. If you want some entrepreneurs and some connoisseurs of
wine, Mr. Speaker, I suspect there are many of them in this hon. House, and I
think we could do an admirable job of deciding which wines.
That is an interesting point, to be more serious. It is an
interesting point that some of the finest wines that were available here have
been delisted and new wines have been brought in that, in my view, are
substandard wines. There appears to be no rationale for it. It appears to be
open to a little bit of skulduggery in that those agents in the Province that
are selling - that are the agents for these wines, who are importing them - they
import them through the corporation. But of course, you know, the corporation
decides if they are going to list it or not.
I have a personal beef here, Mr. Speaker, because I have a
particular brand of Scotch which I was extremely fond of, Grand Macnish. A fine
Scotch that I bought for many years. I am very partial to that particular Scotch
and it was delisted, and it was delisted while I was the minister responsible. I
was honest enough not to fire the chairman of the board and the whole board too.
That is what I should have done if I had any sense at all, if there was any
justice in the world, I would have fired the whole crowd of them for delisting
the minister's Scotch. I have never heard of such an effrontery, Mr. Speaker,
but it was delisted.
The reason it was delisted, Mr. Speaker, was because the
agent that imported it also is the agent for Lamb's rum, and Lamb's rum is today
the most popular rum in Newfoundland. It is an excellent blend of rum. He wanted
to have Lamb's rum now listed in flasks because it was available in 26 and 40
ounce bottles, but he wanted to also have it on the shelf in flasks, or maybe
the smaller flasks, maybe the pups. I am not sure which it was now, either the
flasks or the pups. In order to get it listed in that size he had to give up
something, and he gave up the lowest volume item that he had, which was my Grand
Macnish. So I now have a steady stream of Grand Macnish coming from Nova Scotia,
I hasten to say to the Minister of Finance, and every time I do I will send him
two dollars taxes on that bottle of Grand Macnish.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to look at
the decision making process of which items were listed and which ones weren't.
Control tasting in liquor stores, now I am concerned. Is the minister saying
that that will now be available to the public? I can appreciate that they want
to legitimize the practice that goes on in the Murray Premises. It is a
legitimate practice, but not strictly in accordance with the law, it was
breaking the law. It has gone on for many years. But is the minister saying that
the public will now be able to taste wines, I understand, for a fee in liquor
stores? Will the agents be able to now at certain times come into the liquor
stores with their list of wines and make them available?
I don't have a problem with that, to be honest with you. I
guess that is purely a personal thing, but you know there are many excellent
wines in the liquor stores that people don't know about because they haven't
tried them. Many people go for the brand names that they normally see and they
don't try some of the other excellent wines that are available in our liquor
stores. I will say this, I don't mean to be too critical of the board, but there
are some absolutely superb wines available in our liquor stores that are not
available in other parts of Canada because every liquor board in each province
brings in different wines. But it would be an advantage to the public and to the
wholesalers to do this in liquor stores under controlled terms. But I hope this
is not going to get out of hand so that we have great wine parties in every one
of our liquor stores every weekend to the detriment of our legitimate licensed
lounges and hotels and restaurants. Surely it won't get to that level, but I put
a word of caution to the minister in that regard. With those few comments, Mr.
Speaker, I will take my leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. If the
minister speaks now he closes the debate.
DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, just by way of
response to some of the points that were raised by the hon. member. It is true
that we have been asked to look at the sale of wines in convenience stores. The
feeling now is that we should not do this at this time. There are a variety of
reasons for it. One is that in this Province alcohol is more readily available
than in any other province in Canada except Quebec, and alcohol is a major
problem in this Province and we have to be somewhat restrained in what we do.
Now that is one side of the coin but there are other more technical reasons
having to do with revenues. The thought is that if we do put wine in convenience
stores, they will concentrate on certain brands almost exclusively and the
Liquor Corporation will be under pressure to increase the commissions to these
shops and the amount of money left available to the government might be less and
also, it may influence the variety of wines that the liquor store would carry.
If the high volume wines are sold in convenience stores and
the low volume wines are sold in the government liquor store, then the profits
of the government liquor store may decline and that is one of our two reasons
for the control of liquor in the Province. One is to control the sale and the
second is to raise revenues and we have to be careful these days about the
revenue part.
On the .5 beer, we have received a number, not a large number
but a fair number of submissions from school principals and people of that
nature and others who are concerned about the availability even now of this .5
beer and so on, so we want to control it. Now what has not been worked out yet
is whether it will be taxed at the same rate as regular beer, so that will have
to be looked at. The items that are for sale, the specialty items that will be
for sale in the stores, will be carefully watched. The instructions are to the
Liquor Corporation not to get involved in competition with other shops, but to
provide things which are not worth the while of ordinary stores, the usual
stores to carry because the demand would be so small that it would not be worth
their while to carry these in small shops, so the type of things that they will
be selling are of a very specialized nature largely having to do with wine
tasting and people who make a study of wines and things, and want to read up
books on it and things of that nature.
I do not regard it as a problem. If it does become a problem
we will stop it. We will prevent the stores from doing it because we do not want
to compete with private businesses. I realize that the member's points are
valid.
Mr. Speaker, that is all and I move second reading.
On motion, a Bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation
Act, 1973. (Bill No.9)", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of
the Whole House on tomorrow.
MR. BAKER: Order 6, Mr. Speaker.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The
Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act", (Bill No. 11).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.
MR. GULLAGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This bill deals with sub-section 45 (4) of the Insurance
Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act. An ambiguity in the Act respecting the
extension of liability to directors, officers and partners of Insurance
Adjustment Agencies and Brokerage firms, and this is in the case, Mr. Speaker,
where, a director or an officer or indeed a partner in a partnership, a director
or officer of a corporate body or a partner in a partnership, is also
individually licensed, either in the corporate firm or individual license
through the partnership either way, and this extends the liability of that
individual beyond the corporation or partnership for third party situations
where there is usually a case, an action taken against the corporate firm or the
partnership.
Presently the liability is not extended beyond the
corporation or the partnership, this would provide for extension of liability to
the partner or to the director in the event of a case against the firm or the
partnership. That is the change being proposed, Mr. Speaker, for this particular
act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act.
So it would be amending subsection 45(4) of this Act.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjustors,
Agents, And Brokers Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of
the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 11).
MR. BAKER: Order 15, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order 15.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The
Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation (Newfoundland) Act". (Bill
No. 24).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
Bill No. 24.
DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill No. 24: This
Bill is an amendment to the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation
Act, and it is in keeping with amendments which are being made simultaneously to
the federal act and to the act in Nova Scotia. The amendments may be divided
into three categories: those which are of a clarifying or housekeeping nature;
those which relate to safety in the offshore; and those which relate to
conservation and spills.
Clause 34 would provide that the Bill comes into force on the
day the amendments to the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act of Canada,
and other related amendments to federal acts, come into force, some time over
the next few months. Presently these amendments are being processed through the
House of Commons. They, I believe, are still in the Committee stage at this
time, but are expected to be finished shortly. And likewise are being handled in
Nova Scotia.
They are the final round of amendments that come out of, from
our perspective, the Hickman Royal Commission Report after the Ocean Ranger
disaster, and it really is to cover about the last 15 per cent of the
recommendations that came forward from that Commission.
I will not go into any further detail at this time but I move
second reading.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.
MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I do not have much specific
that I would have to say with regard to this. The explanatory notes say it is
basically a piece of mirror legislation with regard to something going through
the House of commons in Ottawa, dealing with safety, oil spills, and certain
housekeeping, tidying up things. Which are all well and good.
It should be noted, however, that there has been on this
particular work site a relatively high accident rate. So anything that would
improve the safety situation out there is certainly needed. Of course, with
today's world being extremely environmentally conscious, any tightening up of
rules and regulations with regard to oil spills is very much in order.
Perhaps regrettable that due to the fact that we could not
get the type of legislation that we are talking about today, and mirror
legislation, et cetera, from the Trudeau administration, that Nova Scotia was
the first east coast province to pump oil. Because Mr. Trudeau would only give
us a share of federal revenue, a capped share of federal revenue as such, and no
say over the mode of development or no right to collect revenues on our own, as
if the oil were on land.
That is unfortunate. That we are several years behind the
Nova Scotians in pumping oil, that we have to thank to a very central,
strong-minded Liberal government in Ottawa of some years ago that would not
budge an inch on giving Newfoundland a fair deal on the offshore.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with this
particular piece of legislation.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister if he speaks now closes
the debate.
DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything
further to say. Just one minor point of clarification. I believe my hon.
colleague seemed to imply that this might apply to the Bull Arm site. It does
not apply to Bull Arm, it applies to the offshore area.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland
Atlantic Accord Implementation (Newfoundland) Act," read a second time, ordered
referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 24).
MR. BAKER: Order 20, Mr. Speaker. That is The Labour
Standards Act.
MR. SPEAKER: Order 20.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour
Standards Act". (Bill No. 32).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and
Labour Relations.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to Bill 32,
An Act To Amend The Labour Standards
Act, by way of introduction and explanation, I just point out for all hon.
members that these changes that are being proposed and put forward in this Bill
came as a result of the review that was done by The Labour Standards Board. That
board is appointed again now. The previous board that did this work was chaired
by Mr. Emerson Barbour from Clarenville and his people. They submitted a report
which was studied by people in the department.
I think just about every one of the recommendations that the
review committee - they travelled the Province and took submissions. There is
another gentleman from Clarenville who is now chairing the new board, and they
will be in place for another year or so. They are about one year through their
mandate. They have not submitted any report yet. We are still acting upon the
report of the previous board.
There is one item, though, that I should point out, that did
not arise from that review, but which was incorporated as a result of
discussions since that time. The Labour Standards Tribunal, which sits with an
independent chair, and a representative of labour, and a representative of
management, to hear disputes when people are terminated from employment, did not
get the proper notice, do not receive their vacation pay, or did not receive
their last pay cheque, and so on, and it goes to an appeal - currently that
tribunal of three has gotten behind in its work. The recommendation from them,
and also from the board, was that function could probably be better handled and
more efficiently handled on behalf of a disadvantaged worker who is not in a
unionized setting, to have a union file a grievance and so on, if a single
arbitrator heard the case and you did not have to be waiting until three
people's calendars were free, and the backlog and so on that has resulted.
That one additional change is in this bill. We are proposing
that the appeals of labour standards be done by a single adjudicator rather than
a tribunal. We are convinced that will be to the advantage of the aggrieved
worker. It will enable the actions to be taken much more quickly, and that a
dissatisfied or aggrieved worker would be able to get a resolution to their
question or their grievance much more quickly by having a single arbitrator or
adjudicator rule on their case, rather than having a three person panel or
tribunal.
That is in the explanatory notes, in the first one, that the
labour standards tribunal will really be replaced by a system of single
adjudicators. We already have a panel of adjudicators, through the LMCC, that
are recognized and accepted by everybody in the Province, both in labour and
management, to deal with a wide range of issues. It is expected that that list,
along with the current chair and vice-chair of the Labour Standards Tribunal,
who have been in place for over a year now, would be the people who would be
drawn from on an as needs basis to hear these complaints in relation to labour
standards.
The other changes, while fairly significant, I choose to
leave them to see if there are any questions from the opposition on which they
would like further information, rather than go into the details of them, because
that would take some time.
The other changes largely reflect, in many instances, a
clarification of language to get rid of confusion that existed, because
sometimes different parts of The Labour Standards Act made slightly different
references to the same situation in terms of entitlement to leave; what the
definition of a work week was; what exactly should happen with pay for a worker
who was required to work on a statutory holiday. There are different references
in different sections that workers found confusing. Here there is an attempt to
consolidate that.
The review board, when they travelled the Province, heard
these things presented repeatedly. They brought forward the proposed amendments,
which were then vetted through the Department of Justice. They have agreed that
these recommended changes here will provide the necessary clarification, make
the system more understandable to everybody who needs to know what their rights
are under the basic labour standards of the Province, and that it will, in fact,
assist workers, particularly those in the nonunionized setting, who depend upon
this act to spell out for them what their rights are as employees.
With that, I would commend it to the House for second
reading. I am certainly ready to respond in more detail to any questions that
members might have, on which they would like more information.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo.
MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What the minister said about this Bill is essentially right.
Much of it is just tidying up the language that had already existed with respect
to clause 1, Mr. Speaker, I hope it works. Because a number of constituents of
mine who have attempted to go to the Labour Relations Board for an adjudication,
find it is incredibly slow getting a case heard. I hope that the appointment of
a single adjudicator will certainly speed up that process so that aggrieved
workers can have their cases heard in a much shorter period of time than
presently.
I also note, and I think it is a very positive move, in
section 7, clauses 9 and 10, repeals provision of the act, which basically
discriminated against disabled persons, so that they are now entitled to the
same opportunities and wages that other people were.
I want the minister to clarify something for me, because it
occurred on a number of occasions last year in the course of his special works
programs. On or about that time - I am not sure if it was the Thanksgiving
weekend or Armistice Day weekend intervened and there was certainly some
confusion among the people who basically had government-sponsored programs.
Because the Department of Social Services operated, seemingly, in one mode, and
the different other divisions, the Department of Forestry or the Department of
Labour or the Department of Fisheries, seemed to have another standard as to
whether people would be entitled to a day - an holiday, we will call it - say on
November 11, and what period of time someone had to work previously in order to
qualify.
I called the Departments of Labour and Social Services and
each of them had a different explanation as to whether that person was entitled
to a day off or, in fact, because it was a statutory holiday, was he entitled to
double time because of that day he had worked. I have looked through this bill
but I cannot see if it really specifically addresses this concern, because it
sometimes comes up. And, in this case it is people who are essentially working
for government: Are they entitled to a day? If an employee comes to work, for
example, with the minister's department here, and he comes in on one Monday and
the next Monday is a holiday, do these people get that holiday? If so, why
shouldn't all employees of the Province, who work for the government of this
Province, be entitled to it?
Clause 13 provides for an employer who employs an employee at
a remote site, shall pay travel costs of that employee in the event that his or
her employment is terminated. Who determines what is a remote site? Is there
some designation in the legislation that determines what a remote site is? I
would like for the minister to address that.
Other than that, most of the thing we see, it is a tidying up
of the language to allow, for example, for maternity leave to come in line with
the benefits that are already in place with the federal government. Other than
that, we see most of it as being fairly positive. The couple of questions I
raised perhaps the minister could address now.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and
Labour Relations, if he speaks now, closes debate.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the
two or three items raised, I just might offer a general comment first. As the
hon. member opposite points out, there are a number of significant things in
here, even though much of it is language-related. There are some significant
things that we will have to make sure are pointed out to the working public so
that they are aware that these changes have occurred.
One of them, of course, obviously, is the repeal of the
provision allowing for special minimum wage rates for disabled persons. That
issue had been raised in this Legislature before. It had not been actioned by
any employer in the Province that we were aware of, that they were not paying
these rates. But we will certainly make sure that everybody is clear that now
the provision allowing for it has been taken off the books with the passage of
this bill. It is not even remotely possible any more, which everybody in this
House has gone on record as agreeing that that should be the case.
The other entitlements, in terms of looking at bringing
pregnancy leave, adoption leave, and the other types of things in line with the
federal UIC regulations and whatnot. There will be notification. There will be a
necessity for the department to do an information blitz in terms of a pamphlet
or other things that are done to update everybody as to what the new provisions
are in labour standards in the Province.
A couple of the questions - the issue did get raised last
year with respect to the entitlement of people on these job creation programs,
when one of the statutory holidays comes in the period.
We have asked basically, if any one person were to insist on
his right to holiday pay and what not for that provision under the act, we would
have no choice but to pay. And what we have done, because we recognize that
these people haven't been working and would not be working, without the fact
that some department of government or a sponsoring agency put in place a project
especially designed to give them work that they never otherwise would have
accessed; we have asked them to agree, that provided that they were not forced
to work above and beyond what a normal week would have been, that they not make
a claim for additional pay for holidays and so on, even though they have a legal
entitlement under the act and they could not be denied, but these people have
always been asked, and no one can force them on a voluntary basis and most do
not raise it but when it is raised from time to time, we have asked for
agreement -
AN HON. MEMBER: You can't do that.
MR. GRIMES: No we can't insist, it is understood we could
never insist, and if somebody wanted to pursue it, they would have a right that
would have to be determined under the act and it could go through appeal and so
on; however, by the very nature of the job creation projects, it has been
understood, and in most instances, these workers are so grateful and so thankful
to have the work that they feel actually that they would be infringing upon
anybody to try to insist that they get other pay or extra pay when, in fact,
they were put to work where there was no hope that they ever would have had work
if they were left to their own devices.
So, we have recognized that, and when a government department
or a sponsoring agency like a development association, and so on, puts people to
work, they treat them fairly, they make sure that they get what they are
entitled to under the benefit structure, and they would assume and hope that
most people would not be in a position to ask for other benefits, that they
would never even have a hope of accessing by virtue of trying to get a job of
their own volition and through their own efforts. If in dispute, however, Mr.
Speaker, it is clear that the people could, by using our very own Labour
Standards laws and our own Labour Standards Act, insist upon being treated
according to the provisions of the act, and if that becomes an issue it will be
clarified in that fashion on an individual basis.
The other item in terms of remote employers, Mr. Speaker,
normal modes of transportation. If there are road links, and so on, that is not
normally considered to be remote, but if the access is limited to by water or by
air routes, and these are not in any way close to what normal transportation in
the 1990s would be considered, then it is considered and deemed to be a remote
work site. It also has to do with the number of people on that site. You might
be in a remote place by virtue of definition of how you get there by travel, but
if there are fifty people working there and they can access and help each other,
it is not considered to be remote. So it is a combination of where you are, your
remote or not, and those provisions are spelled out and can be checked on an
individual work site basis by contacting Labour Standards officers.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased with the amendments that
are being proposed in Bill No. 32. We think there are a lot of positive things
to help workers in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we will be doing everything
possible upon assuming passage of this bill to make sure that people are
informed of their new rights under the minimum Labour Standards of the Province.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 32.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards
Act," (Bill No. 32), read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the
Whole House on tomorrow.
MR. BAKER: Order 8, Mr. Speaker.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Incorporate The
Newfoundland Association Of Social Workers," (Bill No. 12).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.
MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, this act would see the
incorporation of social workers under a legal association. All social workers in
the Province will have status now as an association and provide for registration
of social workers and recognition of social workers as a profession, giving them
the right to show registration with their association, very similar to other
professional groups and associations in the Province, such as the Association of
Registered Nurses, just as one example.
The name of the association, of course, would be the
Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers. They would have a board
of directors and various committees, provide for registration of social workers,
and in recognition of registration, when they have achieved a designation of
Bachelor of Social Work, or a Master of Social Work. It defines the social work,
a definition of a social worker, and a person who will be acceptable as
registered into this particular association.
The act would be binding upon employees of the government who
practice social work. It also defines those who are exempt under the act. It
provides for a transition period for those who are in temporary positions now,
because since 1984 there has been a - government, of course, decided that only a
Bachelor of Social Work or a Master of Social Work could practice the profession
of social worker. Since that time, any person placed in a position as a social
worker per se has been deemed as temporary.
So, under this act now, and by way of amendment, the
Government House Leader will be putting forward three amendments, actually,
three changes to the bill as it is printed.
One of those will deal with the fact that "permanently" will
be inserted rather than "temporary", and we will only recognise, for the
purposes of this act, permanent employees of the department. The temporary
designation will only apply for a period of seven years. It was five in the
original printing. So we are now giving a period of seven years - an individual
who is serving temporarily in a position now as a social worker will be given
seven years to complete requirements under the courses of Social Work at the
University, at the School of Social Work, any outstanding courses that they wish
to pursue, that they have to pursue, to complete their Social Work degree,
Bachelor of Social Work, or, indeed, a Master's, if they wish to go on and
complete a Master's.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) minimum requirement.
MR. GULLAGE: That is the minimum requirement. So the
minimum requirement, as defined now, and it will come into effect if this
passes, will be a Bachelor of Social Work. You will have to have a Bachelor of
Social Work in order to practise the profession of a social worker. The
transition period, of course, will provide the opportunity for those who are
presently practising to upgrade their education and receive the Bachelor of
Social Work degree in that time frame.
Mr. Speaker, also, as I mentioned, we have moved the period
of time now. We have allowed seven years rather than five years. Those changes,
of course, are reflected in the amendment. Actually, as I mentioned, there are
three subclauses that will be affected by the amendment. But they all deal with
the period of time and the fact that now we are inserting the word "permanently"
instead of "temporary" wherever "temporary" appears in the clauses.
The act also outlines the constitution of the board of
directors. It gets into the regulations that the board may, subject to the
approval of the minister, make regulations respecting subjects of of examination
for applicants for registration; time and place of examinations; requirements
for registration; maintaining records; academic qualifications and experience;
various bylaws that the association would bring into effect, and so on.
Again, the purpose of this act, the broad purpose, is to give
recognition to our social workers and recognize them as a profession; allow them
an association to deal with matters pertaining to social workers and the
profession of social work. Of course, clearly outline that the education minimum
standards for practice as a social worker will be a Bachelor of Social Work, as
a minimum, and then having attained that degree, of course, they will be able to
practice social work and be registered as a professional social worker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia
West.
MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity in the
past few weeks, particularly at the estimate committee meetings, to discuss some
of this with the minister.
I happen to have some views different from the minister and
different from the Member for St. John's East; but the Member for St. John's
East, and my colleague from Humber East, I guess, have been very involved in
this piece of legislation as well, and have discussed it with the minister.
I have a couple of questions to which I would like the
minister to respond when he is finished second reading. What is happening now, I
think it was in the mid eighties where government brought in a policy whereby
any social worker who did not have a BSW would only be a temporary social
worker. Since then, where BSW graduates finished, they were able to bump out the
people who were temporary replacements. I just want to ask the minister: Is that
going to continue, or will the ones who have been there for a number of years be
able to stay in their position? I would like for him to clarify that for me.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services. If
he speaks now he closes debate
MR. TOBIN: No, no.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TOBIN: He is going to answer the question for me now
rather than close debate. We are just going to be a few minutes, if that is
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Okay. The hon. the Minister of Social
Services.
MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, yes, in fact we will continue
the practice of graduates with degrees of Bachelor of Social Work or Master of
Social Work having access to positions that are presently occupied on a
temporary basis by those who are deemed temporary, because they do not have
either one