Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 15 December 1997 (43rd General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLIII No. 51)
1997-12-15
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December
15, 1997
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIII No. 51
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding and I think
we have the unanimous consent of the House that we would move that the House
recess until 4:00 p.m. in order that members and Cabinet ministers might attend
the funeral of and out of respect for the late Chief Justice Noel Goodridge. It
is also my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that we would at 4:00 p.m. take up our
routine matters of the day and carry on in the same fashion as if the
Parliamentary clock read at 2:00 p.m. and I would so move.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in consultation with my
colleague on the other side of the House, we on this side agree with the
procedures and also agree that at 4:00 p.m. we will have the procedures as if it
were 2:00 p.m. in the regular session in the afternoon.
On motion, the House at its rising recessed until Monday at
4:00 p.m.
**********
The House met at 4:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on behalf of Premier
Tobin and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to pay tribute to one of
the Province's most eminent and respected jurists, the hon. Noel Goodridge, who
served as Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland from November 17, 1986 until January 1, 1996, when his illness
compelled him to resign his position as Chief Justice.
Mr. Speaker, the former Chief Justice was born in St. John's.
He studied law at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and in early
1954 he entered the practice of law with the firm Hunt, Emerson, Stirling and
Higgins. As a private practitioner, Chief Justice Goodridge enjoyed a
substantial reputation as a corporate and commercial lawyer, although his
endeavours were in no way limited to that area of practice. During his years in
practice, the former Chief Justice Goodridge served as Secretary of the Law
Society of Newfoundland; President of the Newfoundland Branch of the Canadian
Bar Association and an Executive Member of the Canadian Bar Association. These
positions are a testament to the respect he enjoyed from his colleagues at the
Bar.
On November 13, 1975, Noel Goodridge was appointed a Judge of
the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, where he presided until
his appointment as Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal on November 17, 1986.
Mr. Speaker, peers of the former Chief Justice agree that his
judgements were among the most imaginative and analytical, sensitive and fluent
of any delivered by Canada's judiciary. His decisions always disclosed an
understanding and appreciation of the history and facts of each case that he
heard, and made the reasons for his decision clear to all involved. While he did
not hesitate to apply the law as he found it, neither did he hesitate to comment
where he felt the Legislature needed to act in order to bring about improvement.
Observations made by Chief Justice Goodridge concerning matrimonial property
were pivotal in the enactment of the Province's Matrimonial Property Act in
Throughout his life, former Chief Justice Goodridge was as
active in his community as he was in his profession. He was Chair of the St.
John's Transportation Commission; Vice-Chair of the General Hospital
Corporation; and Executive Member of the Board of Trade and the St. John's
Junior Chamber of Commerce; and President, District Governor and Life Member of
the Kinsmen Clubs of Canada.
This kind, compassionate, humorous but quiet spoken man has
left his mark on everyone who came in touch with him and I wish to join with
many others today in offering sincere condolences to his wife, Isabel, and his
children, Alan, William, Douglas and Maria. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On behalf of the members of this side of the House, Mr.
Speaker, we too join in expressing our condolences to the family of the late
Chief Justice Noel Goodridge. In fact, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and
I have just returned from the funeral service which was attended by many people
- many community-minded people, obviously many close friends of the Goodridge
family and many of those individuals associated with the legal community here in
this Province.
On a personal note, I would simply like to state that when I
was admitted to the Bar, which was in December of 1982, the very first judge
that I appeared before was the late Mr. Justice Noel Goodridge. I found him to
be exemplary. He was a gentleman in all respects and certainly a role model for
any young lawyer.
So on behalf of the members on this side of the House, Mr.
Speaker, we join in wishing well, the family members of the late Mr. Justice
Noel Goodridge. It was indeed a privilege to have known this gentleman
throughout my legal career.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief
statement today to clear up some misunderstandings and misconceptions associated
with property assessments. I am doing this because of a barrage of comments and
calls that I had personally over the weekend.
There have been complaints and criticisms that a number of
properties have increased substantially. While this is true in some cases, it is
also true, Mr. Speaker, that in many other cases, property values have
substantially decreased in value and others have remained the same.
I have directed the Municipal Assessment Agency to do a
complete analysis of the property assessments with a view to determining the
extent by which properties have either increased or decreased or remained the
same. This analysis will be completed over the next two or three days, at which
time I will make the information available to all members of the House of
Assembly.
There are reasons for changes. This recent reassessment is
the first in twelve years, Mr. Speaker, for some municipalities - the first in
twelve years. As well, changes in the physical make-up of certain properties
have impacted on their values.
The new assessment reflects the market value as of January of
1996 in each community. In some municipalities, circumstances have changed since
January of 1996 - such as out-migration - which may have impacted and most
likely have impacted on property values to the extent that today's market value
may be completely different from what it was in January of 1996. If a person
feels that his property value does not accurately reflect the January 1, 1996
market value, then he or she has the right to, and should, in fact, appeal.
Mr. Speaker, at the time initial assessments are conducted,
all properties are physically visited. All properties are subsequently reviewed
in accordance with legislative requirements. If the assessor feels after the
initial review that there is no need for a revisit, then he may dispense with
it. While it may not be generally understood, municipalities would have to incur
increased or additional cost if all properties had to be re-inspected for each
reassessment.
The assessment is only one component of the municipal tax
infrastructure. Property assessments are designed to distribute the tax burden
on the basis of the value of the property. The municipality completes another
component when the council establishes the tax rates.
The assessor's role is to determine the fair market value of
the properties in each municipality. The assessment is used to determine an
individual's share of taxes. The council's role is to determine the amount of
taxes required to operate, set the tax rate, calculate, and send out the tax
bills and then collect the taxes.
The new assessment agency has prepared information in
question and answer format that I want to distribute here today. I believe this
should help MHAs in dealing with their constituents on the matter of
assessments. I also have copies available for the media.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister knows that the Newfoundland and Labrador
Federation of Municipalities has been putting pressure on his department for
many years to complete the assessment process and to do so on a regular basis.
When the minister stands today and says that it has been twelve years in some
cases - not in all cases - that should be a statement that should embarrass the
minister and his department, particularly since these same municipalities have
been repeatedly asking: Would you please upgrade our assessments, do it
regularly, and do it in a prompt manner.
I am pleased the minister is now going to look at some of
those municipalities where there has been an increase in the assessed values.
While the minister here says that there have been some changes in the assessed
values since January 1996, he says that occurs for factors such as
out-migration. I would say to the minister, out-migration started a long time
before January 1996. Therefore the minister should have known, and these factors
should have been factored in at that time, and not now factored in after the
assessments have been completed.
The other factor we should note here is, when the assessments
are done, that when they are re-done, or when they are appealed, then that
appeal is a cost to the municipality; but the assessments are done by the
department or its agencies. Then, what happens is, when you have to bring in
someone to appeal, or to listen to the appeal and make the adjustment, that
expense is then borne by the municipality. Therefore, municipalities are paying
for their right to have a fair (inaudible) in their assessment procedure.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, that is where we have an
unjust kind of situation, because -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. H. HODDER: - if the department is responsible for the
assessments, they should also be -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Does the hon. member have leave?
MR. H. HODDER: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I understood
leave had been granted by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
No leave?
MR. H. HODDER: No leave?
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.
MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to inform members of the successful First
Ministers meetings which took place in Ottawa last week. I am pleased to say
that the meetings should provide future, tangible results for Canadians in a
number of sectors including health.
All of the First Ministers, with the exception of the Premier
of Quebec, have agreed to mandate designated Ministers, under the auspices of
the Ministerial Council for Social Policy and Renewal, to begin negotiations on
a framework agreement for Canada's social union that would apply to
Federal/Provincial/Territorial governments while respecting each others'
constitutional jurisdiction and powers.
The objectives of the agreement will include: a set of
principles for social policy, such as mobility and monitoring social policy
outcomes; collaborative approaches to the use of federal spending power;
appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms between governments; clarifying ground
rules for intergovernmental co-operation; and identifying processes for
clarifying roles and responsibilities within various social policy sectors.
First Ministers agreed that this work should proceed in
conjunction with ongoing activities in sectoral areas and should be completed by
July, 1998.
Some of the sectoral issues discussed included the National
Child Benefit, the National Children's Agenda, Employability Assistance for
People with Disabilities, and the health system. First Ministers reconfirmed
their commitment to the start of the National Child Benefit system by July 1,
1998. They also committed to work together on measures that ensure the overall
level of child benefits for families is protected during the implementation.
The commitment of First Ministers to a new co-operative
approach to ensure child well-being was reaffirmed and they noted the progress
to date in developing a National Children's Agenda. An agreement was also
reached to fast track the work on the agenda through the ministerial council.
First ministers reviewed the progress made by social services
ministers over the past year and endorsed their work on the harmonization and a
revamped Employability Assistance for People with Disabilities program (EAPD),
this will replace the BRDP program. Bilateral agreements for EAPD are expected
by this April and social services ministers have been asked to conclude the
development of a vision statement and a national framework to guide future
collaborative work in this area.
Every first minister present expressed a strong desire to
protect the future of the health system. First ministers agreed to work together
to make sure the fundamentals of the health system remain firmly in place.
Health care must be standardized to ensure that a two tier health system does
not develop in our provinces. It was agreed that it is important to achieve
broad agreement around present and future health priorities before we embark on
any new programs. This will ensure that available funding is invested most
effectively by both levels of government. Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to
arrange a meeting of Ministers of Health for early in the new year to discuss
the immediate health concerns of all Canadians.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay
South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for a copy of her
statement. I would like to say to the minister that certainly nobody on this
side of the House would be against the National Child Benefit or Employability
Assistance for People with Disabilities and certainly nobody would be against
our health care system. We would agree that there should never become a two tier
health system in our country.
We would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is very sad,
that we have seen the cuts in health care in our own Province, that we have seen
brought on by this federal government and when this Premier sat around the
Cabinet table and agreed to these cuts.
So, the only thing we could do or we could say from this side
of the House is to urge this federal government to stop what they have been
doing all along. To take some of the very much needed money to put back into
health care and it is too bad that the federal Minister of Health could not come
to this Province and go around this island to see some of the misery that he has
caused and that his government in Ottawa has caused and certainly this
government here as well, Mr. Speaker.
So, a lot of the things here we certainly have no problem
with. We just wonder why they had to go through this process in the beginning to
make people in our Province suffer the way that they did.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi
Vidi, does he have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I listened very carefully to the ministers' statement and I
did not hear any mention of putting some of the $7 billion that the federal
government is taking out of transfer payments for education, post-secondary
education, social assistance and health care. Mr. Speaker, I hear an awful lot
about process, process, process, but I don't hear any commitment to meet the
goals of reducing or eliminating child poverty by the year 2000 that was agreed
upon federally in 1989. Since then, child poverty has increased in this country,
and in this Province, by 50 per cent. I would like to hear more about results,
Mr. Speaker, and a lot less about process.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the First Ministers' Meeting in Ottawa
unanimously endorsed a vision for Canadian youth wherein "all Canadian youth
participate fully in the economic opportunities for the twenty-first century."
As a Province, the Departments of Education and Human
Resources and Employment were pleased to contribute to the vision statement and
to a youth employment action plan which set clear objectives including the
following:
Maintaining and improving access to education and skills;
providing more work opportunities both for those making the school/work
transition, and for those who may be "at risk"; helping youth adapt to an
increasingly complex and changing labour market; and helping youth address the
social and cultural barriers that prevent full labour market participation.
In this Province, Mr. Speaker, our departments have been
working cooperatively with the federal government thorough Human Resources
Development Canada, the education sector, labour and employer representatives
and the youth services agencies to develop a Provincial Youth Employment
Strategy in conjunction with this national initiative.
Mr. Speaker, an issue of considerable importance to the
students of this Province, both current and prospective, is the level of student
debt and the adequacy or inadequacy of loans programs in assisting students to
be prepared for their future employment opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier addressed this matter with his
counterparts on behalf of the students of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1996 and
again at this year's meetings. As well, as a member of the Council of Ministers
of Education, we have addressed this matter with the federal government and
stressed the need for immediate action. It has been agreed that the federal
Ministers of Finance and Human Resource Development will accelerate work in
concert with Provincial and Territorial Education Ministers so that the Minister
of Finance can take account of this work in the upcoming federal budget.
Mr. Speaker, we are optimistic positive results will flow
from this First Ministers' Meeting and will be identified as real initiatives in
the next federal budget.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have read through the statement and I note that my
colleague, the education critic, just arrived in the House. I have had this for
a little longer than he has. I could probably just say to the minister, that I
find it ironic that the Premier should have to go to Ottawa to find a vision for
youth for Newfoundland and Labrador. I mean, I thought the Premier came back
here with a vision, and he didn't have to go back to Ottawa and get some more
tutoring as to what kind of a vision we should have for Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister this
all sounds great, except where is the meat? Where are the answers for the
students of Newfoundland and Labrador? Where are the real concrete things we can
tell the young people of Newfoundland and Labrador that will affect their
student loans and their debts? When are we going to tell the young people that
they will have better opportunities, that we will reduce their debt load, and we
will make sure that they have a fair chance in order to get a first-grade
post-secondary education in this Province and have jobs to stay here -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. H. HODDER: - and -
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.
MR. H. HODDER: - (inaudible) this Province in their adult
lives?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill -
Quidi Vidi have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again we have
lots of evidence of talk, but only a hope that there might be some action in the
federal budget next spring. The student debt load in this Province for students
graduating from a University program after four years is some three times, at
least, what it was five years ago, approaching $25,000. In fact, approaching the
wall of students being able to study and prepare for the work force. There does
indeed need to be some concrete action. I don't see evidence of it in here.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: Hopefully we will in the future.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.
MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In recent weeks
people from all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador have become aware of the
economic crisis facing the community of Black Tickle on Labrador's South Coast.
The problems in our economy over the past decade, compounded by the cod
moratorium, have affected every community in this Province, but none to the
extent of Black Tickle.
The exceptional issues facing Black Tickle require an
exceptional response. Once apprised of the situation the Premier established a
special committee of Cabinet to fast track government's response to the crisis.
Today, the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture are in Black
Tickle, along with the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, to report
directly to the people of the community on the progress of this committee.
I am pleased this afternoon to report to this hon. House that
the provincial government has approved additional initiatives under the
Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs Job Creation Program for the
community of Black Tickle. First, $65,000 in funding will be provided to employ
twenty-three people to upgrade the fish plant. Tomorrow, the Premier will be
meeting with officials from HB Dawe, owners of the plant. The company will be
paying for three positions and have pledged to match any materials provided by
government. Next week, $20,000 worth of supplies for the project will be shipped
to the community by the Coast Guard.
Thirty-two thousand dollars in funding will be provided for a
Literacy Outreach Program which will employ thirteen people to train workers to
do needs assessment, compile curriculum for tutoring, and provide the basis for
an ongoing community learning project. The project is one identified by the
community and is similar to the other projects along the Coast.
Fifty-two thousand dollars will also be provided and
twenty-three people employed to upgrade the community centre. This work will
include repairs to the roof and foundation and provide for an extension to the
building. This work will provide facilities to assist with the provision of the
school lunch and breakfast program which was previously announced.
The response around Newfoundland and Labrador to the crisis
in Black Tickle is a tribute to the people of this Province. The general public
through Operation Angel have responded with a food drive supported by corporate
citizens such as Air Labrador and Day and Ross. Just today the Premier, while in
Black Tickle, received a commitment from Vince Withers of NewTel to approve the
community's application for Internet access, regardless of cost.
The cooperation between the provincial government, the
community, and the private sector, along with the initiative of others around
the Province, have shown how working together the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador have the drive, concern, and ability to meet the challenges facing our
people. It is this same drive and ability that will ensure the long-term
viability of all our rural communities.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We want to say
first of all that we are pleased the government appears to be listening to the
people of Black Tickle. However, when I add up the figures here I quickly
calculate $169,000.
I say to the government, if we could cure the problems of
communities in Newfoundland and Labrador with that kind of money then we should
have done it a long time ago. I am afraid that it is too little and it is coming
very late.
I say to the government that we want to compliment the
initiatives of an undertaking by the private industry to try to bring attention
to and solve some of the problems that are found in Black Tickle. We want to say
as well that in Newfoundland and Labrador - in rural Newfoundland and Labrador -
there are many other communities, while not to the same extent and feeling the
same frustration and pain as the people in Black Tickle, there are many other
communities where if we could arrange for the Premier to go and visit and spend
some time there, then I think this government would increase its sensitivity to
rural Newfoundland.
We do not see that kind of sensitivity resulting in concrete
proposals for action. Therefore, we say to the government, learn from the
experience of Black Tickle, because if we do not learn from it then there are
going to be a lot more examples like that in this Province, and it is going to
be a consequence of the lack of action by this government.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi have
leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
AN HON. MEMBER: Make up your mind.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Signal
Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to say, first of all, that I think that the
government's response to the needs of the people in Black Tickle was certainly
fairly immediate and seems to be a bit comprehensive in dealing with a number of
issues: employment, the local school, the fish plant, and the School Lunch and
Breakfast Program. I think it is remarkable that the government has responded so
quickly, but I will comment on one thing.
All of the people in Black Tickle, we are told, are in
receipt of social assistance and help from the government already, all of the
families there. It does comment on the level of social assistance that is
available in communities in Newfoundland when it is pointed out that a community
like Black Tickle, which is all on social services, needs this kind of help to
live adequately. I think that does reflect on the government's overall approach
to social assistance in this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in May, 1996, the Newfoundland and Labrador
Paralegal Training Institute applied to the Department of Education for
registration as a private training institution to deliver a Paralegal program.
As part of the analysis, the department reviewed the curriculum and sought
amendments as a result of advice from the Department of Justice. A similar
course is offered in two other private institutions in the Province as well.
Mr. Speaker, where external standards, occupational or
licensing requirements exist, institutions are required to demonstrate that
these are met as part of the approval process. The Newfoundland and Labrador
Paralegal Training Institute satisfied all requirements.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: In addition to approving the curriculum for
programs offered in private training institutions, the department also approves
the institution, its facilities and instructors. It is not the role of the
department to assess daily delivery of programs. This is the responsibility of
the institution. The department does, however, investigate rigorously any
complaints resulting from delivery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: It is in this capacity that officials from
the department met with a group of first-year students from the Newfoundland and
Labrador Paralegal Training Institute on two occasions to hear and address their
concerns. Following separate meetings with the students and the administration
of the school, the department today received in writing a letter from the school
agreeing to substantive conditions put forward by these students as a basis to
resolve this matter. We have communicated through a student representative the
information regarding the offer made by the school.
It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of the
students at the school have stated they are satisfied with the instruction they
are currently receiving - approximately eighty five out of 100 or so students.
Until such a time as these matters have been addressed to the
satisfaction of the disgruntled students, and the department is satisfied that
the school is in compliance with all requirements of the Private Training
Institutions Act and Regulations, the moratorium on new enrolments will
continue. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, the school will continue to operate to
train the currently enrolled students in the program. Full operational status
will only be reinstated when the students concerns have been met and the
department is satisfied that any outstanding licensing issues have been fully
resolved.
Mr. Speaker, the department will continue to work with the
students involved with the complaint, to assist their continued education either
in paralegal studies or another program of their choosing.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for a copy of the
statement before the House opened today.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to respond to this particular
statement by the minister and I say to him, I feel sorry for the students who
are in the gallery today and not in school - it is those students I feel sorry
for.
Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me like the government is
representing the school very well. They talked about meeting on two occasions
with the students.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: Yes, there was a different group a couple of
weeks ago and today, and on Friday -
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SHELLEY: - on Friday, Mr. Speaker, at the last minute
notice, after I had left the House of Assembly, the last minute call for the
students to come to the Department of Education, not to talk about their
concerns, Mr. Speaker, but to see how we could cover it up, how we could solve
the whole issue.
Well, the issue is not solved, I say to the minister, and I
want to state from the minister's own Act, Mr. Speaker - I want to state the
minister's own Act: Where the representative of a Private Training Institute has
made false or misleading statements regarding the course of instruction or
regarding the nature of the contract for the purpose of inducing a person to
enter into the contract and all monies so received shall immediately -
immediately be paid to the person who has paid it and the contract is void.
There does not need to be an agreement, the agreement should
not even be talked about. This is a violation of the Act by this institution.
The minister should take the lead role and meet with the students one on one, so
they can tell you - because, when we talk about -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: - a rigorous investigation, there has been
none, because the students have not even had a chance to (inaudible). Take the
leadership and make sure that (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Does he
have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not think it is satisfactory to say that we are going to
try to address the concerns of those thirteen students and we are satisfied that
because eighty-five others are satisfied with the instruction they are
receiving, that is not the issue, Mr. Speaker. The issue is, the ability of this
government to properly monitor, inspect and approve private post-secondary
education and, Mr. Speaker, this matter could be referred to the review board
under the Act if, in fact, there was a review board, if the minister had
appointed a review board to review and consider these matters.
We do not have one, Mr. Speaker, so we are left with this
kind of procedure in this House of Assembly. Students have to complain publicly
in order to deal with problems in these institutions. I would like to see the
minister appoint a review board under this Act and have them review this matter
and others.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask a question today of the Minister of
Environment and Labour.
I and members of my caucus have, in the last few days,
received petitions, e-mail messages, faxes, telephone calls, numerous specific
calls, I say to the minister, dealing with the Shops' Closing Act.
I ask him, would he do the honourable thing and withdraw Bill
48?
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I think Your Honour has already
ruled in this Legislature that when a piece of legislation - when a subject
matter is to be debated and is on the Order Paper that the question on that
subject matter is out of order. Therefore, I would submit to Your Honour that
the hon. gentleman is out of order.
MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the
Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, we
submit to yourself that questions under
Section 408 state: `... such questions
should be asked only in respect of matters with sufficient urgency and
importance to require an immediate answer. Mr. Speaker, we realize that this
bill is on the Order Paper; however, the things that we were told were on the
Order Paper for Friday did not appear in the debates on Friday. So, Mr. Speaker,
we, on this side, argue that this matter is of great importance. It is of
urgency and therefore it should be dealt with today in Question Period.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To that point of order, I believe the bill dealing with the
Shops' Closing Act has already been called and has been called for second
reading. That item is now on the Order Paper for today. The hon. member's
question is out of order.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Now, I
asked questions in the House last week, I say to the minister, but the Minister
of Justice, who was acting, did not have any answers. So I want to ask the
Minister of Finance again today - he was not aware, as a member of Cabinet,
whether this government had presented any proposal to the federal government
with revision of changes under the Income Tax Act. Basically some of the areas
would be flexibility in setting rates and tax brackets and tax credits to the
provinces. I understand our Province is one of five, this minister knew nothing
about it. I ask the minister, has the proposal been presented? Has Cabinet
discussed it? Does anybody in government know anything about it?
MR. DECKER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, all the hon. gentleman has to do
is refer to the front page of the Globe and Mail on the morning - the
questions which he put in this House he got them from the front page of the
Globe and Mail that morning before he asked them. All he has to do is go and
read that paper. He does not have to waste the time of this House with such
nonsense.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank my colleague, as well, for his intervention. As
members well know, several of the provinces, at an administrative level, have
proposed to the federal government that we change the manner -not the amount,
but the manner, in which tax is calculated. As members well know, the federal
government right now decides what constitutes taxable income, so they take an
individual's gross income, and from that you have various deductions for RRSP,
for personal tax deductions, for dependants and so on, and they arrive at the
net taxable income. We do not have a problem with that.
The way the provincial tax is calculated and the proposal is,
instead of having our tax calculated as a per cent of the federal tax, which is
now the method on which we calculate tax, that we instead would calculate our
taxes by applying it directly to the net taxable income as determined by the
federal government. That would give us greater leniency, greater ability and
greater flexibility to determine different tax rates to provide credits for
low-income people, for example, to increase the threshold at which people pay
taxes and also to simplify the rates.
That has been proposed by several provinces, from my
recollection, I think it is Manitoba, in fact all of the Western provinces. At
the meetings, New Brunswick expressed an interest, which they had not
previously. My recollection is that Prince Edward Island may have come on board
as well.
So, administratively it has been discussed - or discussions
leading up to probably the year 1999 before it can be implemented if that change
is considered desirable.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is pretty unfortunate when a minister has to read
in the Globe and Mail what his financial minister is up in Ottawa trying
to find out, I think that is a sad commentary on the shape we are in.
I ask the minister: since there are three tax brackets now,
back from over ten years ago down to three to simplify the tax system, and since
the federal government has made no indication it is going to change its three
tax brackets, and in order for our Province to vary the rate it must move from
three brackets - because it can accomplish that now within the three tax
brackets - has this Province looked at a change in the number of tax brackets
from the current three, I ask the minister?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, the Province has not considered it because the federal
government has not made a decision as to whether or not it will permit this.
Right now we are fixed with the situation where the provincial tax must be
calculated as a percentage of the federal tax.
So, for example, if a person's taxable income is small and he
or she has to pay income tax of $100, we are forced whether we like it or not,
to apply income tax at sixty-nine per cent or sixty-nine dollars of the federal
tax. Right now we do not have any choice in that matter. What it would give to
the Province, should it choose to do so, is flexibility in how it determines tax
rates, which it does not now have.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
He answered the question and said we are going to change the
tax brackets because you can give a break to people right now by lowering the
sixty-nine per cent they currently pay. You can do that under the current
system, so if you are going to give a break to anyone under that system we must
have different tax brackets.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: The minister has already said that in a
roundabout way, so he is intending to change the tax bracket.
I ask him -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: Is his reason for doing that because the
federal government is going to continue with the three tax brackets, which means
that there is a promise federally, by the federal finance minister, to reduce
personal income tax, which means the Province, as a percentage of federal, is
going to lose taxes. So, is the reason why this Province now wants to increase
it and increase the brackets, to make up for what we are going to lose because
we are a percentage of federal tax? Is that your motive?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, quite the opposite. The provincial government has
indicated that it would like to see the federal taxes reduced, but we also
indicated to the hon. member, and the point that he is missing in this exercise,
is that if the tax rate continues to be applied in the same manner that it now
is, so that our tax is calculated as a per cent of federal tax, that favours
people with larger incomes because, as the tax rate declines, they enjoy more
because a per cent is appreciably less than it was. Sixty-nine percent of a
higher number, as the hon. member may know, in absolute terms is more than
sixty-nine percent of a lesser number. So, for that reason, we think, in terms
of fairness, the Province should have flexibility to set variant rates, to set
variant thresholds. Whether or not that may or may not affect different income
groups is something we would have to consider. We have not yet done so. We would
have to see what rates are available and what particular tax policies you deem
appropriate.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With reference to changing and having a separate system by
the Province where we can set our own rates and our own brackets, there is an
estimated cost with that in the tens of millions, one estimated, I think
federally, said $50 million.
Has the minister looked at the cost that our Province would
incur in moving to a separate system? I am sure the minister must have figures
worked out by his department as to what the cost would be. Could he tell us what
that is?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon.
member is getting his figures from. The cost is fairly incremental, if any. All
you do is you have a new form that applies it. I don't know what the federal
government's cost in the matter would be. The issue wasn't raised. We had the
Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Dhaliwal, and the Minister of Finance there,
and neither of those individuals raised costs at their end as being a factor.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask him, is the
Province considering looking at separate areas for deduction? For example, right
now RRSP and other deductions are subject to deductions from your taxable
income. I ask him: is he looking at applying the deductions that are now
accepted federally like child care expenses, RRSPs, other areas of deductions?
Will the Province with a separate system now eliminate the ability to claim
these, or will there be a proportionate amount that the Province can claim? I'm
sure you looked at those factors because they impact on the bottom line of the
Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and
Treasury Board.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated in my
answer to his first question, we would still - the proposal is that the federal
government would still determine how you get to net taxable income. So whatever
deductions the federal government chooses to allow to remain in place - whether
it be for RRSPs, child tax credits and so on like that - would still remain in
place. What we are talking about is a simple change in our system where instead
of our tax being calculated as a per cent of the federal tax, which in itself is
a variable percentage of net taxable income, we would have our own varying tax
rates, or have the option to do that, applying directly to net taxable income.
All the existing deductions, or as those may be varied from time to time by the
federal government, would remain the same.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some more
questions today for the Minister of Education. There was a policy in this
Province not long ago, in 1996, that changed that basically provided for that
you would have to be established as an educational institution in this Province
for one year before students could avail of the student loan program.
Could the minister tell us when that was changed, what was
the purpose for the policy in the first place, and then more importantly, I
guess, why the policy was changed just days before the Newfoundland and Labrador
Paralegal Training Institute opened its doors?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again I have to
remark that I'm saddened by the approach taken by the hon. member. Because -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've had some private
discussions with the hon. member, and despite the facts that he is repeatedly
given he is trying to suggest that there is something improper about this
particular institute and how it came into being in the Province. I would prefer
at some point that he come right out and say that instead of beating around the
bush.
The fact of the matter is this. There was a policy in
Newfoundland and Labrador for a number of years with respect to institutions
becoming eligible for the students becoming eligible for student loans.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: I will answer the question that was asked,
Mr. Speaker. When we had -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, when one of the first ones that
came to me to be signed in respect to a private institution that had gone
through all the processes to be set up, had met all the criteria. We were ready.
We had issued - this was in Central Newfoundland; I believe the name of the
institution was DieTrac out around Grand Falls-Windsor, Badger, or somewhere in
that area - there was a group of students ready to go.
The students came to the department and petitioned and asked,
along with the owners, as to why it was that there was a policy, and simply a
policy that any of us can make or change any day of the week, that would have
the institution be in existence for a full year before the students who wanted
to go there could access student loans. The students were ready to go and they
wanted to go. They had taken some personal loans, lines of credit and other
things. They wanted to access the student loan system.
When we examined it as a government and said; Why is it that
any one institute that has met all of the eligibility criteria under the law,
every single stipulation that was there to be met had been met, the licence had
been issued, but students who wanted to go there were going to be told you
couldn't get student loans until the organization had operated for at least a
year. When we examined it we saw no reason for leaving it there for a year. We
changed the policy so that as soon as -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: The current policy, Mr. Speaker, -
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude his
answer quickly.
MR. GRIMES: - of the Province is that as soon as any
private training institution meets all the requirements under the private
training act and is granted -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: - a licence -
MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude his
answer.
MR. GRIMES: - the students who choose that facility can
access student loans.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for
Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: A very quick question then, Mr. Speaker, for
the minister. Did your officials visit this institute, I ask the minister, since
it opened its doors in 1996? When they left were they satisfied that all
regulations were in compliance after that visit?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I don't know which institute the
hon. member was speaking with. I was speaking with (inaudible). Maybe he might
ask the question in a little more detail.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, a supplementary.
MR. SHELLEY: In accordance with the act again, I will ask
the minister to table some documents. Maybe I can get some answers this way, if
he is not going to do a full, independent, formal inquiry like I suggested.
Before an institution can start instruction, can the minister
tell me if all students must have their contracts signed before any instruction
can take place? And was that in compliance with this particular institute? Can
the minister tell me that? Or will he table it if he does not know it.
MR. J. BYRNE: Name the institute.
MR. SHELLEY: The Newfoundland Paralegal Institute.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I indicated in a statement in the House a couple of days
ago with respect to this matter, there are now upwards of 100 or so private
training institutes operating in the Province. The staff at the department do
some spot visiting to these particular institutes. The rest of the time it is
much like many other pieces of legislation; we do some spot checking with
available staff. The rest of the time we respond to complaints.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know, personally, the status of the
contracts that were signed in any one of these institutions, but if there is
ever a difficulty, as has been reported here in this instance, it is taken under
advisement and an investigation is done. It has been done in this instance, and
it is still my understanding, as I stand here today, that the students
themselves who have a disagreement with this particular institute are going to
meet individually with the owner and decide upon whether or not they are
satisfied with the settlement, the issues that they have raised, refund of their
money, refund for textbooks, and those kinds of issues. They will determine
whether they are satisfied or not.
In the final analysis, what we have done is exercise our
responsibility by putting in place a moratorium on any new registrants by also
asking the institute to come into full compliance with all stipulations of the
Private Training Act. If that happens, we will make a statement saying they are
in full compliance and we will lift the moratorium. If not, the moratorium on
new entrants will stay in place.
In the final analysis, if the things are not resolved
satisfactorily, as has been stated repeatedly in the past -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: - the institution is in danger of losing its
licence.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, a
supplementary.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
When we talk about compliance, the minister already admitted
publicly in this House that they are not under full compliance. They already
violated it in regard to advertising.
I remind the minister again, from the act - of course, I
cannot read it all - to enter into a contract and all money so received shall be
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to
his question.
MR. SHELLEY: - shall be immediately repaid.
That is the main thing here. I want to tell the minister, not
for the school to tell the minister -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. SHELLEY: Will the minister tell the school - not let
the school tell the minister - to reimburse immediately, as at before 5:00 p.m.
today, or by tomorrow, to the students who are out a lot of money because of
this institution.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A process is in place that has been followed repeatedly ever
since we have had private institutions in this Province, for over twenty years
now - an important point.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: We have had private institutions operating in
this Province for over twenty years.
I might point out to my friends and colleagues opposite that
the procedures that are being followed now by the staff in the Department of
Education are the same procedures that were followed ten years ago, twelve years
ago, three years ago, five years ago. Ten years ago people opposite in the
government, and someone like one of those was the Minister of Education, and the
staff were doing the job in the same way it is now-
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: - and I am quite satisfied that the interests
of the students are first and foremost in this matter.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, a final supplementary.
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister today to
take the lead role and not let the school tell him what to do. What I suggest to
the minister again and I did it before any of this broke, and I say in this
House again to the minister: You talk about a rigorous investigation; the
rigorous should start with the victims. The victims have not been heard from.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Again, the hon. member is on a supplementary.
MR. SHELLEY: I say to the minister again today: If he
really wants to find out the truth and get to the bottom of this, that he call
for an independent inquiry into this particular institution.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER: Why won't he? Why won't you?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay
South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
Mr. Speaker, in 1999 the Province will celebrate the 50th
Anniversary of Confederation with Canada, followed the next year by the
Millennium Celebrations marking the year 2000 and the 1000th Anniversary of the
Viking Visit.
Mr. Speaker, I know firsthand of the work that has to go into
organizing such events, both nationally and internationally, as I am sure the
minister does.
My question to the minister is this: Can she provide an
update today of the Province's preparations with respect to the 50th Anniversary
Celebrations, considering they are now just over thirteen months away?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can give somewhat of an update today, but because the whole
concept plan has not gone to Cabinet yet, I cannot give you all of the details.
I can tell you that in Corner Brook on, I think it was, November 16 we launched
the logo and the theme at the end of the Cabot Celebrations Conference. We have
put together a concept plan which now I have to bring to Cabinet. After that,
when the budget is finalized, I will certainly make sure that the hon. member
and this House, and everyone throughout the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador, are aware of everything that is happening with the celebrations for
As to the Viking 2000 Celebration, I think it was announced
several months ago that the advertising company, M5, here in Newfoundland and
Labrador, have been contracted to put together the concept plan, and I am
expecting that any day now.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay
South, a supplementary.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, in 1996 we had the new Premier appealing to Ottawa
for assistance to fund The Year of the Arts Program, year long festivities for
the 1997 year. I ask the minister: Are there now any plans in place to again
have a year of the arts for these upcoming celebrations and, if so, at what
stage are they today?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Of course, we are extremely pleased with The Year of the Arts
and all of the activity that has gone on, as well as the corporate sponsorship
around that particular project; as a matter of fact, with the corporate
sponsorship around the whole of the Cabot Celebrations.
Most of the companies that have been involved, in particular
NewTel who were involved with The Year of the Arts, and the companies involved
with the others, have already laid on the record that they will be very
interested in partnering with us.
Because the budget is not yet done for this year, I can
certainly not make any announcement as to a further year of the arts, or whether
it would, in fact, be called the year of the arts. Of course, this year we have
the cultural innovation fund, and many of the projects that have been undertaken
this year will have spin offs that are going to happen well into the next few
years.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay
South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, given that some regions were not as successful in
attracting additional visitors during the Cabot Celebrations as others, what
approach will your department take now to ensure that during these anniversary
celebrations that all the Province might benefit from these overall
celebrations, and not, as we had in the Cabot, as you know and I know, where we
had certain areas of the Province which did not benefit as well? I would like to
know what plans are in place now to make sure, or to ensure, that the whole
Province benefits.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the question of
the Government House Leader. If he would only keep his mouth shut, I might
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be extremely
difficult, being that we live in a Province with approximately 700 communities,
to ever be able to assure or guarantee communities that they would all receive
an equal benefit. Because this celebration this year, many aspects of it
concerned bringing home ex-patriot Newfoundlanders for reunions and other
festivities. Many of the benefits were to Bonavista, of course, because that
happens to be where John Cabot landed, and many of the events had to be specific
to the communities that were celebrating the specific events of our 500 years of
history. But we will, of course, endeavour to spread whatever tourism wealth we
can possibly generate for this Province all over the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology. As the minister is aware, we have been consulting with local
manufacturers and producers to try to put together some ideas as to how they can
secure more government contracts and deal with government on various issues
relating to the public tendering process.
We have seen, on many occasions, tenders go out from
government - such as the Cabot 500 flags and pins tender call - where at least
part of the tender call was for something that could not be supplied by local
manufacturers, therefore shutting them out of the entire tendering process.
Government has the power, I say to the minister, to call for
whatever specifications they choose in a contract. So I ask the minister: Will
she give assurances that government will determine more accurately what is
produced here locally and try to make the tendering packages as friendly to
local manufacturers and producers as possible, so that we have as few contracts
leaving the Province as possible?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Ask him if he has the chain-link fence up
that he tore down yesterday? Do you have the fence back up?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is fair to say that the
question could really have been put to either the Minister of Works, Services
and Transportation or to myself. Clearly, we have a concern when it comes to
local industry, just as the hon. member does, and I am interested in what he has
going now in terms of meeting with local suppliers. What we have to do is try to
find a way that our local suppliers can in fact access those national contracts.
There is a recognition, by this government, that we really need to be conscious
of what is happening to our local companies out there, and we have been doing
that on an ongoing basis. We have been meeting with the industry associations as
a department year-in and year-out, and at this point in time, we have issues
that are being brought to our attention just as the hon. member is hearing them
as well. So we want to work together to try to resolve this in the best interest
of our local suppliers, and we will do just that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.
John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister, can she give assurances, will she give
assurances, that when tendering goes out on large assortments of items - again,
such as the Cabot 500 flags, banners and pins tender call - that she will have
the tender call more individualized, perhaps even into a number of tenders,
therefore allowing local manufacturers who produce pins but not banners that at
least they may pick up part of the tender?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, again, I go back to the whole
issue of procurement. Of course, it depends on which department is looking for
what in terms of supplies. Whether or not the specifications are written in the
best interest of a local supplier, again depends on the department and what they
are looking to get, and whether or not it is available in this Province. But
yes, we will certainly look at that, Mr. Speaker. It is an ongoing issue for us
and one that we are concerned about as well. We want to make sure that we get as
much supplies from this Province as possible so that, of course, when you do
that, it increases the employment opportunities for our people, and that is
certainly where we are coming from as a government.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.
John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If we are going to start getting more supplies from our
Province, we should start doing it.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister look into introducing an
independent Ombudsman so that the local manufacturers have somebody to turn to
when dealing with government tenders, so that local manufacturers and producers
have an independent body to which they can address questions and concerns?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, every local manufacturer in this
Province knows, if they have an issue they can pick up the phone and call me. My
door is open all the time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: If there anything, any issue they want to deal
with, I will do that with them on a personal basis. We do not need an
independent body to do that. I challenge anyone to say that they have yet to
call me and not gotten a response to an issue.
Mr. Speaker, the issue here, I think, is whether or not we
look at a price, whether or not the price is the bottom line here for a supply
or whether or not it is local manufacturer, and we have to bear that in mind as
well, Mr. Speaker, so we are overhauling all of that. We are looking at what is
happening in the Province and we are trying to be as sensitive as we can,
bearing in mind a number of issues here with respect to local suppliers.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South, a
final supplementary.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, price and tenders are a part of the problem but, Mr.
Speaker, I had a meeting on Friday with local manufacturers and producers and if
they did not need an Ombudsman, they would not have asked for an Ombudsman. If
they were getting questions answered from the department, they would not have
asked for an Ombudsman.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is now on a supplementary - I ask him to get
to his question.
MR. T. OSBORNE: I ask the minister again: Will you put in
place an independent Ombudsman to help the concerns of local manufacturers and
producers?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Technology.
MS FOOTE: No, Mr. Speaker.
When the day comes that I am not there to address the
concerns of these local manufacturers when they come up, then I should not be
there. So I would tell you that my door is open, they can call me at any time to
try to deal with those issues.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis,
one quick question.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will make a quick question to the Minister of Government
Services and Lands.
Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the Member for Harbour Main -
Whitbourne presented a report to government with respect to the ATV Regulations
and the changes to them. When will the minister introduce those changes and, can
he tell us some of the changes that have been proposed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services
and Lands.
MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, we are dealing with the report that was done by the hon.
members and we will, in due course, bring forward legislation that will enact
the ATV regulations along with snowmobile regulations and off-highway vehicle
regulations, all in one act.
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Presenting Reports by
Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to inform the House that I have for tabling the
audited financial statements of the Province of Newfoundland Pool Pension Fund,
rather, for the year ending December 31, 1996.
Some points worthy of note include that the pension fund grew
by 15.9 per cent during the year, and had investments with a total market value
of $1,293,300,000 at December 31, 1996. There were 12,078 pensioners on payroll,
having a total cost of $178.7 million annually.
These are the two funds together. The Public Service Pension
Plan Fund has a balance of $928.4 million, and there is at this time $364.9
million in the Teachers' Pension Plan.
The other two plans, the Uniformed Services Pension Plan and
the MHA Pension Plan, are not separately funded and have no accumulated
investment assets.
I would also like to table for this hon. House, the Teachers'
Actuarial Report, which is interesting. This one was completed as of August 31,
1996. Devaluation reveals that its total liability for the Teachers' Pension
Plan is $1,982,000,000 and, as I said earlier, the total assets are $346
million, leaving an unfunded liability of $1,637,000,000. The ratio of assets to
liabilities is therefore 17.5 per cent. It will get worse, Mr. Speaker.
On a combined basis, the 30-and-out plan, which is known as
the Teachers' Ancillary Pension Plan, or TAPP, is, in effect, being tapped out
very quickly and being replete with funds from the Teachers' Pension Plan, the
TPP. These will both be exhausted before the year 2003.
A recurring theme in Actuarial Reports is that as time
progresses the period shortens. Several years ago the actuary space on current
evidence assumed it would be depleted by the year 2006. The last time I stood in
this House it was toward the end of 2004 or early 2005. It has now moved to
2003, less than six years from now - five years almost - a little bit more than
five years.
The deficiency payment required in the year 2003 will be
$26.5 million. The next year it will be $121.1 million, and in the year 2005 it
will be $139.6 million.
The actuaries have changed their assumption. They had assumed
that the TAPP, Teachers' Ancillary Pension Plan, would have a take-up rate of 50
per cent. They increased that to 70 per cent. They have now increased it to 90
per cent.
Last year, based on their assumptions, under that plan they
expected 208 teachers would go out under that plan. In fact, 416 went out, more
than 100 per cent more than the original number expected. It had been assumed
that the expected age of retirement would be 52.3 years. It was actually 50.6
years of age.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I say for the benefit of my hon.
friends, during 1996 and 1997 we have been negotiating with the Newfoundland
Teachers' Association in efforts to develop a solution, without result. A recent
poll of their membership indicated that the NLTA, as a whole, had no mandate to
negotiate pensions. Teachers indicated to us strongly that any resolution would
have to be undertaken solely by us. That we are considering and assessing.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to present a petition to the House of Assembly.
The petition reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly in legislative session
convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have
introduced legislation to remove the current restriction on Sunday shopping; and
WHEREAS this legislation, if passed, would have serious
consequences for retail and wholesale workers who now count Sundays as
guaranteed holidays that they can spend with their families; and
whereas we do
not need and we do not want the changes that this legislation would cause;
wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
withdraw Bill 48,
An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act.
Mr. Speaker, on Friday morning this particular piece of
legislation was tabled. The response from the public generally speaking has been
quick, it has been swift, and the message is clear. When you see Peter O'Brien,
the Canadian Federation of Independent Business Owners surveying its members
saying that about 77 per cent of its membership does not want to see shops open
on Sunday for a number of reasons... Because it will not increase revenue. This
is what the business owners and representative of business owners are saying. It
will not increase their revenue but will do one thing and one thing only. It
will drive up their costs.
When you see individuals representing the Federation of
Labour and people involved in the retail sector say clearly that they do not
wish to see shops open; when you see people from the Federation of Labour, the
impact that will have upon their membership; small store owners in this
Province, both in rural and urban Newfoundland, will be dramatically impacted.
Since Friday I've received sixty-one calls on this issue.
Beginning Friday afternoon is when I started to catalogue them. One person
called and said they were in favour of shops opening on Sunday. On Saturday in
The Evening Telegram 's editorial they talked about opening up shops on
Sunday. Today in the editorial it says it shouldn't be opened all day, only four
or five hours of the day. Which is it? I had a call from the Corner Brook
Downtown Association that told me it spoke to its individual members who
referred it to me.
AN HON. MEMBER: Go on!
MR. E. BYRNE: Fact.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Honest to God. Members in Corner Brook said
they do disagree with the shops' closing act, and that the best bet would be to
refer their -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: MHAs in Corner Brook. The best person to
contact is the critic, they said, for the PC Party. He will get the message out.
They disagree with it. Now, for a member from Corner Brook to say that he got
one call when I received five today from Corner Brook alone is simply ludicrous.
I do not believe it. I say to the member, I do not believe it. There isn't one
member over there who can say honestly that they support this piece of
legislation. Why the haste? Why the rush? There's no need of it.
Two years ago, one week before the House of Assembly closed
in 1995, we were debating this piece of legislation when a former Minister of
Employment and Labour brought it forward. What happened to it? It died on the
Order Paper. Last spring we were debating this particular piece of legislation
again, and what happened to it? Never called it. There were many petitions
presented in the House of Assembly, Hansard will clearly show, and the minister
of the time, the Minister of Environment and Labour at the time -
AN HON. MEMBER: Chickened out!
MR. E. BYRNE: Chickened out. That is a good way to put
it. Offered an olive branch and said: What we will do is we will introduce a
pilot project during the tourist season. What happened? The tourist season came
and went. No pilot project. Mr. Speaker, the implications -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?
MR. E. BYRNE: That is the question.
AH HON. MEMBER: Who's pushing this?
MR. E. BYRNE: That is the question I'm going to get to.
Who is pushing it? Other provinces, Mr. Speaker, in Atlantic Canada which enjoys
close proximity to us, which enjoy similar standards of living, which enjoy
similar ways of life, had said no. Nova Scotia and P.E.I. do not have Sunday
shopping. New Brunswick is reviewing its policy of allowing Sunday shopping from
Labour Day until Christmas, a pilot project.
It will not increase revenue. It will drive up costs,
clearly. You have owners of businesses and retail shops - I spoke to one
furniture owner this week and he said: I'm at my business fourteen hours a day,
six days a week, it will not do anything for me. The thing it will do for me is
it will force me to open on Sundays if my competitors open on Sundays. That will
drive up my costs, drive up my expenses, and there is only so much money to be
passed around. It will not increase revenue. These are business owners saying
this.
I talked to the people from Bonavista today, who indicated to
me store owners in Bonavista are fearful, are very fearful, and they are just
one example -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
MR. E. BYRNE: I have 100 other petitions I say to the
Government House Leader.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to support the petition put forward by my
colleague from Kilbride, and to say to the government members that since I have
been here in '93, we have not seen an issue that has resulted in the kind of
response that this issue has resulted in today. Over the weekend, I can say to
hon. members that I received more calls on this issue than I did on Educational
Reform for the same period of time.
Mr. Speaker, that will tell you the kind of response. The
last call I had last night was at 11.15 from a lady who said: Would you please
today, stand in the House and tell the people in the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador that we, the customers, do not want this legislation. Last evening
when I was attending a church service, as I walked out through, I was approached
by the clergy; I was approached by several people coming out of the church who
said: Would you please do what you can to make sure that this piece of
legislation does not get approved by the government.
Today, I received calls from people who are working at
Canadian Tire, and I have here other petitions and they represent not just the
employees at Canadian Tire here in St. John's, but represent the shoppers and
the customers who do not want this piece of legislation to be passed by this
Legislature. Today I had calls from Gander, calls from Marystown. One
businessman said: If I have to open up my business to keep up with those big
chains, then, he says, I will have to close up my small business because he
said: I just cannot afford to open my store on Sundays but, he said: I may be
required in order to keep up with the other stores that are in the area because
they are bigger and they can absorb the cost.
Mr. Speaker, we ask the government: Why the haste? Why did we
come in here just a few days ago and have this thrust upon us without
consultation and here is the government in its red book, in its bible, in its
red book talking about consultation, and when we talk about consultation, it is
very selective. At certain times they have selective amnesia when it comes to
their red book. They preach a gospel and then they go and act as hypocritical as
one could when it comes to implementation. If you believe in consultation, then
you believe in consultation on this issue. Why aren't you listening to the
customers, to the people in the retail business, why are you not out there today
conducting public hearings?
I listened to the Member for Humber East shouting across the
House as if everybody in his district was in approval of this, you know, the
yapper snapper from Humber East, and I say to the member that if he is so sure
that he is representing the people in his district therefore he should be honest
because I have people in his district who have told me that this is not good for
his district either, so I say to the member, he should be standing up today
representing the people in his district who are not in favour of this particular
piece of legislation, and I say to all hon. members: if you believe in
consultation, you went out, and were elected on the red book, that was a policy
document, that was the bible, that was what you were supposed to follow and then
you said: We are a government who consult with the people on a regular basis.
We had the Minister of Finance go out with his dog and pony
show all across the Province and, Mr. Speaker, that was in order to have his
Budget done and now we are saying to this government: Here is an issue, if you
believe in consultation then do it; if you talk the talk, then walk the walk. In
other words, don't preach something and then we will do it when we just want
you, which is to our advantage, we will consult, when not to our advantage, we
will ram it down the throats of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we won't give
them a chance to respond through the Legislative Review Committee, we won't give
them a response to petitions, we will just ram it through but I can tell you
right now, on this side of this House, if you want to ram this through, then you
better get the Legislative and the Parliamentary Procedures in place because I
will tell you what: this is going to be a rough ride.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is with some interest that I read in the weekend comments
made to one, Mr. Peter O'Brien. I have heard many arguments put forth to advance
things, and pros and cons but one of the arguments that he put forth was
basically this, that if you open a store on Sunday you destroy rural
Newfoundland. Now, Mr. Speaker, you don't have to be a genius to realize - that
is made from his office in Halifax. Let me also say this to you, it is the same
Mr. Peter O'Brien -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR LANGDON: It was also the same Mr. Peter O'Brien who
only a few weeks ago talked about not to implement the report of the WCC, not to
give the injured workers their rights due to them. The same guy!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR LANGDON: A lot of validity to that. Mr. Speaker, I am
going -
AN HON. MEMBER: Selective memory!
MR LANGDON: Yes, he has very selective memory.
I want to tell the hon. members opposite that I was at home
all weekend on purpose. I got one call from a guy in St. John's who complained
about it and basically, Mr. Speaker, if you talk to the people that are out
there in industry - for example, this morning coming in on a flight with the
hon. Member for Baie Verte, how many people objected on the flight to opening on
Sunday? Two. Out of how many?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here is we are
saying that the consumer in this Province does not have the integrity or the
right to decide for himself if he wants to shop or not. Mr. Speaker, we are not
telling the stores to open but basically what we are saying is that the consumer
has the right to do it. If they don't patronize then the stores will not be
opened.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Orders of the Day
be now read.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay
South.
MR. FRENCH: I believe that I was standing, sir, before
the Government House Leader stood and I was standing to present another
petition. I was standing up, sir, waiting. I stood up before the Government
House Leader.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair had seen the hon. minister rise first but if hon.
members want to revert to petitions, that is up to themselves but the Chair did
see the hon. Government House Leader rise and the Chair recognized him and saw
him first.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move first reading on Motion No.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act No. 2," carried.
(Bill No. 52)
On motion, Bill No. 52 read a first time, ordered read a
second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before calling any further Orders
of the Day, I would move that the House not adjourn at -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House not adjourn
- can adjourn at 5:00 p.m. of the calendar time but I would move that it not
adjourn at 7:00 p.m. of the calendar or at 5:00 p.m. of the parliamentary time.
MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour, `Aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: Against, `Nay'.
AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.
MR. SPEAKER: Carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would call Bill No. 48, "An Act
To Amend The Shops' Closing Act No. 2."
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay
South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess I will pick up where I left off on Friday. I am with
my colleague, the Member for Kilbride. Since this bill was introduced, on Friday
more so than ever and again today in my office, I have received numerous phone
calls opposed to this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, dead opposed
to this particular piece of legislation.
On Saturday I had a call from a store owner who works six
days a week and works anywhere from ten to fifteen hours a day. He felt that
that was enough time that he had worked, him and his family, and that no way
should this particular piece of legislation be passed. That is one man who
called me.
I had the opportunity this morning to speak to another
individual who is manager of a store, a fairly large store, Mr. Speaker. During
the conversation, I said to this individual: How many people who work in your
business want this particular bill to be passed? The lady said to me: Absolutely
nobody. She said: We will employ no more people. The sales that we make in six
days we will now do in seven. If anything, at the end of the day it will cost us
money to operate our particular business. That was another individual.
Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege to
attend a Santa Claus Parade in my district and a young man who was there came up
to me during a break and said to me: Bob, saving me the trouble of calling you,
I will tell you now that I am opposed to this particular bill. He is a young man
with a family, Mr. Speaker, who works shift work and who certainly resents the
fact that his day may be very well taken away from him, that day, of course, Mr.
Speaker, being his Sunday which is the only day in his work
schedule that he has
the right and the opportunity to spend with his family.
Again, Mr. Speaker, why the rush for this particular piece of
business, I have no idea. I say, Mr. Speaker, that today was certainly not the
last of petitions in this House concerning this matter. I received a visit today
from union people in this Province who told me, as well, that they were against
this particular piece of legislation. So, why the rush, Mr. Speaker? Where did
this bill come from again all of the sudden? Just bang-o and the bill drops out
of thin air and appears here in the House of Assembly. Where did it come from
again? This now makes the third time that this bill has been introduced in this
House; the third time in two years. Why, Mr. Speaker? Who is driving it? Because
the business community in this Province is not driving it, the small store
owners in this Province are not driving it, certainly the workers in this
Province, Mr. Speaker, are not driving this legislation, and the public are not
driving this legislation. So, where is it coming from? Where is it coming from,
Mr. Speaker? I would really like to know. I would really like to know why, at
the eleventh hour, this thing gets introduced again.
One of the people I spoke to this morning was a manager of a
store, manager of a fairly large store, who is manager for a business which is
outside of this Province, who said to me: Bob, I have talked to my supervisor on
the Mainland, they do not want this store open on Sunday. They do not want this
store open on Sunday.
MR. MERCER: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Humber
East: When he is ready, he can get out of his chair and he can praise up this
bill all he wants. He can get up and he can talk in favour of this bill, if he
is in favour, or he can sit there as he usually does and say nothing.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: We will see how the back bencher gets on. We
will see if he gets up. We will see if he has the gumption, Mr. Speaker, to get
out of his chair. For the public record, we will see if he can come out of his
chair. We will see if he comes out in support of it or against it. That is
certainly his right to get up either for or against the bill and I would
certainly trust that he would be up against it, but that is his decision and
certainly that is his right and I would never deny him that right.
Again, where does this bill come from? Why the rush all of a
sudden to get this bill through now at this particular time? There were lots of
times earlier on in this session when a lot of the bills that came up were more
housecleaning than anything else. Why didn't this bill come forward - does the
Government House Leader think that at the eleventh hour we will cave in because
he has some of his members over there who have already been on this side asking
us to get out of here so they can all go home. If that is what he thinks, Mr.
Speaker, he is more than wrong, I can assure him of that, because we are
certainly not caving in to this particular issue.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.
MR. TULK: On a point of order, I want to assure the hon.
gentleman that I do not believe that he is eager to get out of here at all. It
is just we have some things that we have to get done.
MR. J. BYRNE: No point of order, sit down, as usual.
MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So, again I say to the Government House Leader, we have
certainly had visits from some of his colleagues telling us that they would like
to get out of here and they would like to get out of here in a hurry, but anyway
that is his problem, not mine.
So, again I say, Mr. Speaker, this bill of course will also
hurt small businesses in this Province and there are other provinces, Mr.
Speaker, Nova Scotia, PEI, who don't have Sunday shopping. It is a way of life
in this Province, I say. It is the only day that people in Newfoundland and
Labrador are sure they are going to be off and all of a sudden, regardless -
somebody must be driving his bus, Mr. Speaker, and it must be somebody with a
good cheque book or with a good something who is driving this. It must be
something because all of a sudden we have to get this particular bill passed, we
have to ram it through the House of Assembly and we have to enact it into law.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, my phone keeps ringing and ringing and ringing both in
my office and at home and it continued all weekend and it still continues. The
next call that I get which says to me: stand up in the House and support this
particular piece of legislation will be the first one. It will be the first call
that I got to support this legislation.
I have no idea, again why it comes here today. As my
colleague said there certainly would be churches and religious groups that were
against it. I have also had calls from people in that area who have said to me:
oppose this bill, so that we can still enjoy the right to be off on Sundays'.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what it is going to do to wages? Will
it increase wages? Will it drive wages back down? Again, one of the stores that
I spoke to, and a fairly large chain store I might add today, told me that it
will not create one single new job in their industry. Not one single new job
will it create. If anything it will make sure that some of these jobs will
probably result in lay-offs especially people that are the higher paid ones and
a lot of it will be farmed out to part-time workers in this Province. So, it
will be farmed out - we will probably see full-time workers losing their jobs.
There are families in this Province, Mr. Speaker, because
both parents are working, who rely on Sunday as the only day of the week that
they can spend with their families. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, we in here, if
somebody told us we had to be here every single Sunday, I wonder how we would
feel? I do not think we would want to be here, Mr. Speaker. I am sure we would
not want to be here every Sunday - if Sunday-in, Sunday-out, this is where we
had to spend our time.
I think you would soon find members on both sides of the
House who would be jumping up and down saying that is enough of this. We would
not want to spend very much time in this place on Sundays. Not one of us on
either side of this House, I say, would want to spend one minute in here on
Sundays. I know I certainly wouldn't, I know my colleagues wouldn't, and I am
sure members opposite wouldn't. Because again, Sunday is not only a time we take
for our families, but in our business, Sunday is a time we take as well to do a
fair amount of our work.
Again, what will the hours of the day be for some of these
employees? Will we open from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., as some of them do? Will
we open at 8:00 a.m. and will we work twenty-four hours a day, as some of them
do now? One large chain closes at midnight. Does that mean if we change this
legislation that it will be open twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week,
right throughout the whole year? I wonder.
I wonder what the employees in those businesses will say, or
would say, if we told them tomorrow morning that all of a sudden their
lifestyles will change. We are going to change all their working hours and we
are going to say to these people: You can have a day off on Monday, and maybe
you can be off again on Thursday. To a man and his wife who both work, with
children, Sunday, which is when their children are out of school, or Saturdays,
sometimes, when their children are out of school, I do not believe that it would
sit very well, and certainly would not augur very well for family life in this
Province.
At least it is one day; Sunday is the one day of the week
when a lot of people - and in families where today we have to have two people
working, a lot of them just to survive. I wonder if we did this - or if in
another case where we had a man and a wife both working, and one was off Monday
and Wednesday and the other was off Thursday and Sunday, what impact would that
have on family life? Again, I say, it would have a great impact on Sunday. It
would certainly have a great impact on the way of living for the family.
Again I say this is wrong. It certainly is wrong and should
never be passed through this House. I think it will hurt many workers in the
retail -
MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. FRENCH: By leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill 48, a
bill once again before this House to permit, perhaps enforce, Sunday shopping on
the shopkeepers and workers of this Province - to force it on them. It is
written in terms of `allow Sunday shopping', but the consequence of it would be
to force workers and, through competitive means, force shopkeepers and retailers
to open their businesses on Sunday.
The people of Newfoundland are not in favour of this. The
retail workers are not in favour of it. I just met a woman outside the House who
is now sitting in the gallery. She tells me she works at Canadian Tire. When
asked what the people at Canadian Tire felt about this, she said: All of them
are opposed to it. We have been sending faxes to the Premier's Office. Other
stores are doing the same thing. Faxes upon faxes, and faxes with signatures on
them, sent to the Premier's office - they have not been tabled here in the House
yet - complaining about the introduction of this bill, complaining about the
concept of Sunday shopping, recognizing that the consequence of this legislation
would be that these workers would be forced to work on Sunday.
Because we live in a rather competitive society where, if one
store or one competitor offers their service on Sunday, the others are forced to
do the same thing. The only proper way to curb this problem is to maintain the
status quo with respect to Sunday shopping.
There seems to be an awful lot of people trying to figure out
where this is coming from. No one seems to know. The minister, himself, does not
seem to know. He was on the radio the other morning and he was asked by the
interviewer, Jim Brown on CBC, who did he consult with when he was deciding to
bring this bill forth? The answer was, `nobody'. He consulted with nobody. And
he offered some rather weak ideological argument that says: Well, you know, the
way we see it, this is just another aspect of government controlling and
imposing its will on business, and business should be free to do what it wants.
The Minister of Labour is saying, we do not want to tell businesses how they
should operate.
Mr. Speaker, I object to that. We tell businesses how to
operate all the time. He also happens to be the minister responsible for the
environment. They are not going to tell businesses how to operate? Not going to
control the excesses of business? Not going to maintain strong labour standards
and labour laws? Not going to have environmental controls that are satisfactory
to the environment and to the future generations of this Province? Not going to
have occupational health and safety regulations enforced to the hilt? Not going
to control business? - some ideological motive. With whom did he consult? - he
was asked. Nobody! And that is pretty clear from the reaction since then.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Get to the point, the hon. member says. The
point - who did he consult? Nobody!
AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody.
MR. HARRIS: And what has he found out after he said that?
The people that he should have consulted do not want it. That is what he found
out since he made that statement, that the people he should have consulted do
not want it to be implemented.
Does the Federation of Labour, representing some 40,000
workers in the Province, want it? No. Does the Federation of Independent
Business, Peter O'Brien is the Executive (inaudible), want it, representing
2,000 businessmen? No, 10 per cent of them but not the other 90 per cent.
So the business people do not want it, the small business
people do not want it, the employees do not want it. The employees are sending
faxes to the Premier's Office and the Leader of the Opposition and to members
here. They do not want it. The people who are telephoning hon. members on both
sides of the House ever since this came out do not want it. The storekeepers and
the shopkeepers in Corner Brook have spoken out strongly. Mr. Fred Alteen spoke
on the weekend. He thinks it is a `townie' plot.
AN HON. MEMBER: What?
MR. HARRIS: They think, out on the West Coast, that it is
a `townie' plot. They said, "If the `townies' want it, let them have it."
MR. J. BYRNE: A `townie' or a Tommy?
MR. HARRIS: A `townie' plot - `townie'. That is what they
think out on the West Coast. They said: Well, if St. John's wants to make fools
of themselves and force them all to work on Sunday, let them do it.
AN HON. MEMBER: `Jack', John Murphy was wrong about you.
You are a very entertaining speaker. You are not a boring speaker.
MR. HARRIS: I thank the hon. member for his compliment.
I say, Mr. Speaker, this is not a `townie' plot. I can assure
the people of Corner Brook of that. This is not a `townie' plot. There may be
some storekeepers in St. John's who want it to happen. There may be, in fact,
two or three, but we do not know who they are; and the minister doesn't know who
they are because he has not consulted, so he says. So no one knows who is in
favour of this, except some general, ideological approach: Well, we do not want
to exercise any control over business. It is all part of deregulation.
What goes next, labour standards? What goes next,
environmental regulations? What goes next, let them all pay no taxes? Let them
go do what they want?
This seems to be the direction in which this minister and
this government is heading with this regulation, and we will do this in such as
way that it is brought in at Christmas time while all of the storekeepers, while
all of the employees, are working overtime. All of the shopkeepers are concerned
about the expenses. Their electricity is going up; their electrical costs are
going up; their taxes are going up; their assessments are going up; thanks to
the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, their municipal taxes are
going to be going up; their costs are going up; their employee costs are going
up, we hope - or at least I hope and the employees hope - and what is happening?
Now they are going to be forced to open another day and have additional costs.
Spread out their overhead over another day. Turn on the lights full blast. Turn
on the heat full blast to be open another day and maintain extra staff. For
what, Mr. Speaker? Are there more dollars to be spent? No, Mr. Speaker, there
are less dollars to be spent. We see it every day. The governments, federal and
provincial, are taking money out of the economy. They are not putting it in,
taking money out.
Just yesterday on the weekend, `privatization in Labrador to
does that mean, Mr. Speaker? That means there are $22 million per year less
going into the economy of Happy Valley - Goose Bay; $22 million per year less
being spent in the stores and now the stores are going to be open seven days
instead of six.
What do we have, Mr. Speaker? Just in the last twenty-four
hours the shut down of Marine Atlantic responsibility for ferry service in
Labrador. Another 200 jobs gone out of the CN Marine. Some of them will be
picked up no doubt but gone out of CN Marine, Mr. Speaker, and money gone out of
the economy. So what is happening -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: The federal government took $7 billion out of
transfer payments. Several hundred million coming into this Province every year,
Mr. Speaker, gone. Lay-offs in the public sector, lay-offs in hospital health
care, lay-offs in the teaching profession, lay-offs in the public service. Less
money being spent and now, Mr. Speaker, the storekeepers and the shopkeepers who
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) close all the schools too.
MR. HARRIS: Close the schools too, yes. They want to
close the schools now and lay-offs in the school system - $25 million - speaking
of schools, the Member for Twillingate wants to talk about closing the schools.
His government, in the last five years, has taken $25 million a year out of
public post-secondary education, $25 million. Almost one-third of the provincial
dollars that went into post-secondary education, for non-university
post-secondary education, removed, Mr. Speaker, ripped out of the system.
Twenty-five million per year taken out of provincial government support for
post-secondary private education. So there is less money available to be spent,
less disposal income people have, less opportunity to go to the stores and buy
goods.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is why the storekeepers, the business
people are opposed to this because it does not do them any good. We are not on
the border of the United States where all these people are going to pour over
the border on Sunday to spend their dollars. That is not going to happen here.
There is no advantage to that, Mr. Speaker, no advantage to that at all. What
are we going to have? The shopping malls will be open on Sunday. Well do you
know what that will mean, Mr. Speaker? And I don't know if the minister knows
this, perhaps the minister doesn't, but the leases - maybe the minister should
be told about what's in the leases at shopping malls. In leases in shopping
malls, Mr. Speaker, there is a requirement for every store to be open when the
mall is open. So this is not permissive. If I have, or the minister or the
Government House Leader has a store or shop in the mall, a gift store in the
mall and it is not economical for them to be open on Sunday, if the mall is
open, if they change as a result of this legislation then every single store in
that mall has to be open or else they are in breach of their lease. So the hours
at the mall are open
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Never mind now. We got the member's goat over
there now. He wants to attack law firms. Well just name them, we'll help you.
You name the ones you want to attack.
AN HON. MEMBER: Yours, Jack.
MR. HARRIS: I don't have one. I resigned.
AN HON. MEMBER: What about your wife?
MR. HARRIS: She doesn't have one either.
Mr. Speaker, what about the shopkeepers? What about the
independent businessmen who - 90 per cent of whom - oppose this type of
legislation? What about those who have leases in shopping malls? We have
shopping malls all over the Province, Mr. Speaker. Now there is a clause in the
lease which says that when a shopping mall is open they have to be open.
AN HON. MEMBER: Is that right?
MR. HARRIS: Absolutely. Now why would that be, Mr.
Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I didn't know that.
MR. HARRIS: Well that is good for business. You can't
have a shopping mall open, some shops open and some shops closed. They want to
advertise them all. So it is in their lease, they have to open. Now the minister
goes on to say we are not forcing people to open. We are only saying it is up to
them. If they want to open then we are giving them the right to open. Well that
just does not happen to be the case, Mr. Speaker. The minister may have found
that out if he had in fact consulted but he says - and I admire him for his
honesty - he said on public radio, live the other morning when he was asked by
Jim Brown, the Premier's friend, the Premier's favourite interviewer, on the
Premier's favourite show, the Morning Show on CBC, asked the Minister of
Environment and Labour, asked him who he had consulted with, on this issue? And
he said: Nobody -nobody.
MR. J. BYRNE: He went to the mountain.
MR. HARRIS: He might have gone to the same mountain that
the Premier went to when he decided to run for public office in Newfoundland and
come back from Ottawa to grace us with his presence. He might have consulted the
same mountain; he did not consult any people though, because if he had consulted
the people he would have been told point blank, square, not by some public
opinion poll which may have been done. We do not know the questions that were
asked, we do not know anything about that poll. What we do know about that poll
is that it was 58 per cent in favour and so many per cent against, 42 per cent
against. But I think there was a 6.8 per cent or a 7 per cent error rate so it
was never a big sample. I know it was never a big sample and I do not know if it
were just townies now.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Ten people.
MR. HARRIS: Two hundred people. They might have only
asked townies and that might be the skew, that might be the problem; that might
be why the people out on the West Coast think this is a townie plot, so this may
have only been a survey of St. John's residents and was published in The
Evening Telegram , but it was one of the highest error rates I have ever seen
on a survey that has been published on public opinion in this Province. Now I
wonder why - well, I wonder why it was ever published, Mr. Speaker? Who would
publish such a question unless they were trying to influence public opinion, not
find out what it was but influence it? A 6.8 per cent error rate, they are right
within 6.8 or seven percentage points nineteen times out of twenty. So, Mr.
Speaker, even on the 58 per cent, that could be 51 per cent, according to them
it could be sixty-four or it could be sixty-six and they are only right nineteen
times out of twenty.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we have heard more than twenty or
thirty surveys in the last while and maybe, this is the one that is way out. I
know of one myself back in September that seemed to be way out; the end result
certainly was way out from what I was told that was the result a month before,
so polls can be wrong. They can be wrong, Mr. Speaker, so I do not think we
should take that to the bank at all. I would not take that to the bank at all. I
would not stand up here in this House and say: Well, I did not consult anybody
but I saw a survey that I liked.
MR. FITZGERALD: It was piggy-backed on another poll.
MR. HARRIS: It was piggy-backed on another poll that is
only right nineteen times out of twenty and even then, only within six or seven
percentage points. I have never seen a survey published like that before.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) over 300 Newfoundlanders.
MR. HARRIS: Two hundred, and 21 per cent of them did not
know what it was all about, they did not understand the issue. I do not know
whom they talked to, to find that out. So, Mr. Speaker, whom did they consult?
Nobody! If they had consulted, what would they have found out? They would have
found out that the employees do not want it, that the retail trade does not want
it. There are some stores who want it; there are some boutiques that want it;
Jim Baird wants it -
AN HON. MEMBER: What?
MR. HARRIS: Jim Baird, that well-known Liberal, the
well-known Liberal commentator, former candidate for the Liberal Party in St.
John's East, a commentator for the Liberal Party -
MR. J. BYRNE: What did he say?
MR. HARRIS: He said, he is in favour of it. He said he
thought it was a wonderful idea and he said the existing law was unenforceable
anyway because he has been breaking it all the time and they tried to get him
twice and never got him.
MR. J. BYRNE: Well, should they not change the law and
make it harder on him?
MR. HARRIS: So is that why we should change it, because
they cannot even get their Liberal commentators, when they are openly breaking
the law? When they claim to be openly breaking the law, defying the law and the
Minister of Justice cannot get him before the court, cannot get him on breaking
the law.
MR. J. BYRNE: How come the Minister of Justice does not
know that?
MR. HARRIS: Is the answer to that: let us change the law,
because we cannot enforce it against our own Liberals?
MR. J. BYRNE: Too much dust on it. Too much dust, you do
not know who is there.
MR. HARRIS: Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe that was part of the
consultation, listening to Jim Baird complain about how the minister cannot get
him. They were getting so embarrassed because they could not even successfully
prosecute Jim Baird.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, they cannot seem to successfully
prosecute him so maybe that is why they are doing it. I say to the Government
House Leader, can you take a joke?
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, this legislation, I think, is
letting the cat out of the bag on one other thing.
MR. J. BYRNE: What is that?
MR. HARRIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a game
plan here that does not involve consulting the people of the Province.
MR. J. BYRNE: That is not unusual.
MR. HARRIS: Well, I do not know, I mean there were
several attempts in the past. Last spring he was going to call it, he was on the
verge of calling it, and he was ready to call it, the last day: Let us put this
through now boys, for the Cabot celebration; let us have the shops open for the
summertime. I know the bill says more then that, the bill says, let her go.
MR. J. BYRNE: Let her slide.
MR. HARRIS: The bill says, let her go, but listen; I know
there is going to be controversy, let us just do it on a trial basis for the
tourist season. Now, the only problem with the tourist season, according to the
minister, was the tourist season went from June to December. I was scratching
myself, I said, boy, this must be some tourist season we are going to have, a
June to December tourist season. We will open it and then we will see how it
works out.
MR. J. BYRNE: All in favour, I suppose.
MR. HARRIS: Well, that was the way that they hoped they
could put it in, get the Opposition to agree for the summer.
MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: I did not, they did.
MR. TULK: They agreed last spring, did they not? `Jack',
tell the truth now.
AN HON. MEMBER: No, we did not.
MR. HARRIS: I tell you one thing, I will let them speak
for themselves, but I tell you, this hon. member -
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order,
sit him down before he opens his mouth.
MR. SPEAKER (M. Penney): The hon. the Government House
Leader, on a point of order.
MR. TULK: I have to inform the hon. gentleman that he was
right, last Spring the Official Opposition agreed to put this bill - whip her
through and the only gentleman who was against it was the Member for Signal Hill
- Quidi Vidi.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the
point of order.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is trying to hear what the hon. the Opposition
House Leader is trying to say.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, to quote Winston Churchill,
the Government House Leader is a `consistent and persistent purveyor of
terminological inexactitudes'.
MR. SHELLEY: Whatever that is is wrong.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I refrain from using
unparliamentary language, but as Churchill said, it is quite okay to say to
another hon. member that he is a purveyor of terminological inexactitudes, and
that is exactly my response to the Government House Leader, in other words you
are wrong.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the
point of order.
MR. TULK: I was so happy to the see the hon. gentleman do
his gymnastics to get down to his seat, Mr. Speaker, and I am so happy to now
know that the hon. gentleman has learned something, he read Churchill, how good.
You could have said it a lot simpler.
MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I did not join in on the point of order, but I just want to
say - the Official Opposition can speak for themselves - but I want to say one
thing, that this member opposed and would oppose and did oppose any version of
Sunday shopping. And I recognize the ploy last June as being a back door to
getting the bill that they are putting before the House now. I opposed it
absolutely, and I am glad that the Official Opposition and I agree on Bill 48
now before the House, because they oppose it, too.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: I think, Mr. Speaker, the Government House
Leader is taking advantage of my hardness of hearing and trying to get me on the
go, trying to get my goat.
The issue before the House really is one that we have had to
deal with before, and we have had to deal with it on occasions like this: the
day before the House closes, a couple of days before the House is supposed to
close, like now.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: We may not. No, we may have to hoist it for
six months or a year or two. We might just not bother. When the faxes keep
coming in and the petitions keep coming in and the public keeps saying: Listen,
I thought government was supposed to respond to the people, not order them
around. Maybe when the government says: Look, I think we maybe should listen to
the people, maybe we should not be ordering them around. Maybe we should
consult, maybe we should have a committee, maybe we should see whether people
really want this or not.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: I think we should just withdraw the bill. I
think the minister should give it up. There is a very simple procedure, and the
minister has it available to him, under Standing Order 54 of the rules of the
House. Put it out to a committee. Let a legislative committee consider this. Let
them hold hearings, see what people think. Do not pack the committee with Tories
or Liberals. You cannot very well pack it with New Democrats; unless you were
going to wait until the next election. Then, Mr. Speaker, you would have no
trouble packing the committee.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Let us just wait until that Party has a new
leader. There will be lots of people over here when that Party has a new leader.
AN HON. MEMBER: Who do you think it is going to be,
`Jack'?
MR. HARRIS: I am not going to comment on that. I am very
concerned; I am focused on Bill 48. I am not going to be distracted, Mr.
Speaker. In fact, you know something else? I think Bill 48 is a distraction. It
is an attempt by government to try to save the bacon of the Ministers of
Education, Human Resources and Employment, and Health, all of whom in their
departments have trouble. They have trouble. That is the whole purpose of this.
They bring it up every year; last year, last spring, this
Christmas. Get everybody all excited. All the businesspeople out there saying:
What are they doing? We are here busy trying to run our shops, and now they want
us to try to lobby the government? We cannot do it. Everybody is up in arms, and
they love it. Now, next week, when we are here next Wednesday or Thursday, they
will say: Maybe we had better pull in our horns.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Next Wednesday or Thursday, Mr. Speaker:
Maybe we had better pull in our horns; maybe we have gone too far. Maybe the
will of the people is bouncing back at us and we have to have some little
demonstration of democracy just to keep them from beating down the doors - a
little demonstration of democracy. We have listened. I raise my hands like this.
The Premier will be in next week, waving his hands: We have listened, the people
have spoken, I have gotten all these faxes, and I think the Minister of
Environment and Labour has gone too far. I am going to ask him to withdraw the
bill.
MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Well, look at what happened to the Minister
of Justice only last week. Only last week the Minister of Justice said, `Oh, no,
I don't think we need public hearings on this issue of guns'. At the same time,
of course, the Premier was doing an interview and he was saying, `I don't have
any problem with public hearings'. The next day the minister says, `I think we
will have public hearings'. And I think that might happen here.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Justice last week, `I don't
think we need any hearings on guns for police'. The Member for St. John's East
said, `There will be no guns without hearings!' He was adamant, `There will be
no guns without hearings!'
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: No, I don't think so.
It just happened that at the same time the Minister of
Justice was saying, `I don't think we are going to have any hearings,' the
Premier was saying, `I think it is a good idea'. The next day the Minister of
Justice, all of a sudden, saw the light. He was saved. All of a sudden he saw
the light. The Minister of Justice saw the light. `I think public consultation
will be a good idea; let's have a Select Committee'.
Now I guess that is what the Minister of Environment and
Labour will discover. He will discover, after a few more days of being battered
in the media... Even The Evening Telegram editorialist, Mr. Fenwick, has
changed his tune on it in the last two or three days.
Mr. Speaker, we are opening the door. We are opening it to
The Evening Telegram editorialists. They have changed their tune; and by
next Tuesday or Wednesday the public will be so outraged that government will be
ready to offer a peace offering and we will have an announcement that it is
going to go to committee under Order 54, a Select Committee of the House. We are
going to consider; we are going to consult.
I have to congratulate the Minister of Environment and
Labour. He was honest.
MR. J. BYRNE: Who?
MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Environment and Labour was
honest. When he was asked who he had consulted with, he said, `nobody', not one
soul.
MR. J. BYRNE: Did he say who told him to do it?
MR. HARRIS: He didn't say who told him to do it. He
didn't say Wally Mart wanted it. He didn't say Wonderland (inaudible) Night
wanted it, or Jim Baird or anybody.
MR. J. BYRNE: Did he say the Premier wanted it?
MR. HARRIS: He didn't say the Premier wanted it.
MR. J. BYRNE: No?
MR. HARRIS: He didn't say Jim Baird wanted it. He didn't
say that the gift stores wanted it. He said that the government wanted to
deregulate business.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is a dangerous notion, to
deregulate business. For a Minister of Environment and Labour to have that
attitude toward business, bu