Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Oral Questions; Statements by Ministers — 25 November 2002 (44th General Assembly, 4th Session)
2002-11-25
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November 25. 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 34
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
On November 20, the hon. Government House Leader raised a point of order
concerning comments made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition during Oral
Question Period on November 19.
Before getting into the details of the point of order, the Chair would like
to remind all hon. members of the importance of conducting the proceedings in
this or any other Parliament in such a way as to respect the integrity of all
members. Without such respect, the proceedings descend into disorder and the
work of the House becomes secondary to wrangling and disputes. To quote Marleau
and Montpetit on page 525: "...the use of offensive, (or)
provocative...language in the House is strictly forbidden." "Personal
attacks, insults...are not in order."
While the acceptability of language depends on the context, there are certain
prohibitions which are fairly well established. These can be found in 481 of Beauchesne's
6th Edition.
A member must not, "(
e) impute bad motives or motives different from
those acknowledged by a Member or (
f) make a personal charge against a
Member."
It has been consistently ruled in the House that language must be temperate.
I think this is the key to the whole matter.
It is also, however, a requirement when raising points of order that members
bring such matters to the attention of the House immediately. In the case of
something said during Oral Question Period, of course, it should be raised at
the appropriate time, immediately after the proceedings are over.
However, it is perhaps a good opportunity to remind all members of the
necessity of keeping their language temperate and of respecting the integrity of
one's colleagues and the dignity of the House.
In respect of the expression raised by the hon. the Government House Leader,
the expression, "Shame on you," the Chair has done some research and
has found that it is one that is frequently used in various parliaments.
However, the expression, "less than honest", is in the category of
imputing bad motives and, when applied to an individual, is unacceptable and
tends to cause disorder.
Two points that I want to make: One is, that from now on all points of order
will have to be raised when they arise or in the case of Oral Questions, of
course, they should be raised at the appropriate time.
The Chair did take the point of order under advisement and, in the view of
the Chair, calling a member less than honest is unparliamentary and the Chair
now invites the hon. Leader to withdraw that comment.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I graciously accept your ruling, and I withdraw my remark that the hon.
gentleman was anything less than honest.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to take this opportunity as well to
invite to the House today fifteen adult education students from the school,
Skill for Success on Military Road. They are accompanied by their instructors:
Bernadette Galgay, Agnes Murphy and Anne Buckle, Director.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to inform all hon. members that Humber Valley Resort has
received an International, Mercedes-Benz award as the best Canadian resort
development in 2002.
This award was recently accepted by local entrepreneur, Brian Dobbin, at an
awards ceremony held at the Royal Ascot Pavilion in London, England.
Mr. Dobbin and his partner, Mr. Rex Phillpott of Cottles Island, received the
award for the resort that they are currently constructing in Humber East on the
north shore of Deer Lake just east of Strawberry Hill. A resort which will
consist of some 350 luxurious chalets and a championship golf course.
The Mercedes-Benz awards are presented annually to the top international
property developers and property marketing companies in the world. This year
over 1,000 companies were nominated worldwide, including eight from Canada with
Humber Valley Resort being the only Canadian winner and the only recipient to
receive the prestigious five star platinum commendation.
Mr. Speaker, this award speaks highly of the high regard that the Humber
Valley Resort development and its principals have on the international scene and
the ability of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to successfully compete in
International markets.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in
congratulating Mr. Brian Dobbin and Mr. Rex Phillpott of Humber Valley Resorts
on receiving this prestigious award.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to ask the House to join with me to send special congratulations
and best wishes to the organizing committee, supporters and the senior hockey
team, the Cataracts of Grand Falls- Windsor.
Mr. Speaker, the Cataracts are back for the 2002 and 2003 season in senior
hockey with the Labatt's Western Senior Hockey League.
Mr. Speaker, the Cataracts have not played Provincial Senior Hockey since
1984-1985 season, but with the help of many people and sponsors, too many to
mention, we now have a very energetic group of players from Badger, Bishop's
Falls, Gander and Lewisporte.
The Cataracts are showing great skills in hockey and I know the spectators
watching this team will not be disappointed; they have already won three out of
four games played. Saturday past, I had the honour of participating in the start
of the first game on home ice at the Windsor Stadium. The Cataracts played to a
full house both on Saturday and Sunday.
Mr. Speaker, the supporters of the Cataracts will be shouting: Go Cats Go for
some great hockey. I say thanks to the team and the organizing committee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to congratulate Mr. Ches Penney, a native of Carbonear, on being
named Atlantic Entrepreneur of the Year for 2002. Mr. Penney is chairman and
founder of The Penney Group of Companies which has blossomed from a small
owner-managed road building company in 1971, to a holding group with more than
sixty companies in four provinces. The Penney Group of Companies employs almost
3,000 people in a multitude of industries, including: construction, real estate,
automotive, seafood processing, off-shore oil and gas services, ship repair,
steel fabrication and marine terminal services.
Mr. Penney is a well-respected businessman in the community who builds long
lasting relationships with his colleagues and the business community based on
trust and honesty. He also supports a number of non-profit and charitable local
pursuits. His tenacity, sense of commitment and infectious spirit provide
encouragement for our Province's entrepreneurs.
I think it is fitting that we acknowledge Mr. Penney's contribution to
entrepreneurship in Newfoundland and Labrador and the contributions of all
entrepreneurs within the Province. Also, I would like to recognize the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency, Atlantic Progress magazine and Air Canada
Jazz who sponsored the Entrepreneur of the Year program in the Atlantic region.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in expressing congratulations
to Mr. Penney and all who made the awards possible.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to acknowledge the 30 th anniversary of the St. John's
Status of Women Council. Since 1972, the St. John's Status of Women Council
have been working hard to advance the social and economic equality of women in
our Province, and all members of the council, past and present, are to be
commended for the excellent work they have done.
There were a series of events this past week in honour of the anniversary,
including a gala dinner on Saturday evening, which I had the pleasure of
attending. Unfortunately, there were not other members of the House there to
enjoy the historic event and to hear the speeches and comments of so many
activist women, both past and present, who shared stories of their struggles and
achievements.
Wendy Williams, feminist activist, long-term council member, and past
President of the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, was here
from British Columbia to give the keynote address. We want to thank Wendy and
all the women, past and present, who worked so diligently in furthering the
cause of women.
Over the past thirty years, the St. John's Status of Women Council has been
lobbying on behalf of women, challenging and changing inequalities that women
face, and advancing equality in the Province. They established the first women's
centre in Canada to be owned in their own building and were also the driving
force behind the development of women's shelters in this Province and started
the Iris Kirby House.
While much has been accomplished, there is much work to be done. The St. John's
Status of Women Council will continue to play a leading and critical role in
addressing women's issues, shaping government policy and furthering women's
equality in Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate the McIvers Community Improvement Club, better known as the MCIC,
on its 30 th anniversary which I had the pleasure of attending on
October 26, 2002. The Club was organized in 1972 by a group of women from the
town and, at present, it has twenty-nine active members. As I said at their 30 th
anniversary dinner, they wanted to do it right so there were no men allowed and,
to this date, this policy still stands.
The McIvers Community Improvement Club is a beneficial organization which
provides an extraordinary amount of support to the community as a whole.
Initially, the Club was created to help raise funds for persons who had to
travel for medical reasons; however, today it has expanded its efforts and
provides aid to several groups within the community. The Club's priorities now
include: providing aid for people who travel for medial reasons; helping the
youth of McIvers; donating to the church; assisting the local Fire Department;
and supporting the Town Council. All monies that are donated by the Club are
raised by a weekly bingo game which is held at the Community Hall.
The McIvers Community Improvement Club has, for thirty years, shown
tremendous spirit and unwavering dedication to the Town of McIvers. It is
estimated that this group, totally volunteers, raised over $130,000 to help and
improve their Town and its residents.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of the House to join me in extending
congratulations to this remarkable group of women who have each been, and who
will continue to be, extraordinary examples of community leaders.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues about the cultural policy announced
on Saturday that will help preserve and enhance the culture of Newfoundland and
Labrador. This policy focuses on both the tangible and intangible heritage of
the people of this Province. It includes the activities of artists and art
professionals, heritage professionals and volunteers, and Aboriginal and
European-based tradition bearers.
Our culture is the heart of our identity. We are very much defined by the
marine environment in which we live. Our culture includes our past and present
day peoples, including their art forms expressed in music, dance, theatre,
literary works and film. We want to preserve, protect and strengthen our culture
by valuing the legacy created by our predecessors and contemporary professionals
alike. Our Province has made, and continues to make, significant contributions
to the cultural fabric of Canada and the world.
The main component of our cultural policy is a set of guiding principles
which will direct government in setting cultural goals and developing
strategies, initiatives and programs. These principles focus on all aspects of
culture from its inherent value and quality of life, its socioeconomic value,
linguistic diversity and peer assessment. They will allow us to clearly
articulate priorities on cultural matters to our federal partners, and help us
work collaboratively to identify priorities in existing programs. In drafting
the policy, we reviewed international models of cultural policy from countries
such as Ireland, Scotland, Denmark and Australia, and identified the best
practices within each.
Based on these guiding principles, I am proud to say that we have one of the
most progressive cultural policies in Canada, if not in North America.
Mr. Speaker, this policy is the result of efforts by several stakeholders in
the cultural community. The Association of Cultural Industries, the Association
of Heritage Industries, the working committee on cultural policy, and, of
course, several staff in the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation
contributed to its development.
The creation of this policy represents Phase I of the Cultural Policy
Development Plan. It will form the basis for the Strategic Cultural Plan. Phase
II of the plan will outline the goals, objectives and key actions which flow
from the guiding principles announced last weekend.
Mr. Speaker, we take great pride in the cultural identity that binds us as
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We recognize the social and economic
contributions culture makes to our Province. It is important that we benefit
from the uniqueness that is ours, and future generations should be able to do
the same. We, as a government, share this obligation with the people of our
Province. We support cultural products and activities targeted to our own
residents, as well as national and international audiences. Adopting this
cultural policy visibly demonstrates that we are meeting our commitment to
nurture and preserve and enhance our Province's culture.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her Ministerial
Statement, and I say to the minister, you are right, we do have a very unique
culture and heritage here in this Province. In fact, I believe we are the envy
of everybody who comes to visit.
Mr. Speaker, culture policies are good, guiding principles are good, but what
I am hearing from the community out there - and it was only, in fact, driving
into work this morning, and the message was loud and clear - while we need good
policy and while we need direction, the comment was: Show us the money. Where is
the commitment to direct funding so that we might be able to implement those
policies and those guidelines as put forward by the minister?
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the CIDA agreement expires in March of 2003,
which is the funding that is provided to the community today, and they are
wondering where funding is going to come from as of March, 2003, when the
funding of today ends.
Mr. Speaker, I know of one incident in my district, in Bonavista, where we
have the Bridge House which was built prior to 1814, and the historical
association in Bonavista has gone to this minister and asked her to allow this
structure to fit into some of the guidelines of funding that is administered by
her department. She is saying: I am sorry, but it doesn't fit into those
guidelines.
That is hard to believe, that the only wooden structure of pre-merchant days,
dating back prior to 1814, does not fit into a heritage structure and a heritage
fund as put forward by the minister. Minister, yes, we need guidelines. Yes, we
need principles, we need direction, but we also need money and commitment in
order to make it a success.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. As the
previous speaker has mentioned, Mr. Speaker, it is going to take money for this
to happen. It is fine to have all the principles in place but I think even
according to ACI President Donna Butt, she talks about the need for dollars to
make sure this can be carried out.
I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that our culture and our heritage are something
that the people of this Province are very proud of, and that is reflected in our
music and in our songs. I would just like to give one example of that, if I may.
If you go to any place in this world and meet people from other provinces in
Canada, and if they happen to have been there four or five years, and you ask
them where they are from, then where they have been living for the last four or
five years is the answer you get. But, if you talk to anyone from Newfoundland
and Labrador, in another part of this country or in other countries, and ask
them where they are from, even if they were there fifty years, the answer you
are likely to get -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: - the answer you are likely to get is: I have been living
here for the last fifty years but I am from Newfoundland and Labrador.
I think that speaks volumes about the affection and the pride that people of
this Province take in being from this Province.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House of Assembly that
the Department of Education has received national and international recognition
for its efforts to improve the achievement levels of the students of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: What has caught the attention of the Council of Ministers in
Education, Canada, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) is this Province's Criterion Referenced Tests.
Mr. Speaker, in 1995, the Department of Education began to assess primary
language arts performance using a form of provincial assessment called Criterion
Referenced Tests, otherwise known as CRTs.
When our primary children were first tested in 1995, our students had shown
some improvement over earlier achievement levels but there was significant work
to do. We recognized this work had to begin in the primary grades. Furthermore,
we felt that we needed to expand the program and began using these assessment
tests on students in Grade 6 and Grade 9, for both language arts and math. And,
because of our focus on literacy and our efforts to ensure students get a good
start in their school years, we are now testing Grade 3 students every year.
I was pleased to join the Premier last month to report on the tremendous
achievement levels we have experienced with the most recent results of the CRTs
for our primary students in language arts.
The results illustrate significant learning gains by our primary children and
show that many more students are well prepared to enter elementary school. For
example: Approximately 90 per cent of the Grade 3 students across the Province
are writing at an acceptable level when they leave primary school. This is
significant, Mr. Speaker, when you consider that our system is an inclusive one.
More students are writing at a level that exceeds what is required when they go
to Grade 4; over one-third of our students are entering elementary school with
exemplary writing skills; and 80 per cent of our students are able to read and
understand stories, books and other reading materials at the required level for
Grade 4 entry.
Mr. Speaker, we have made such significant improvements in the reading and
writing skills of our primary students because we take these results and discuss
them with our school boards, school principals and teachers at the district and
school levels and, most importantly, with our students.
We provide meaningful feedback to our schools and teachers to identify the
strengths and weaknesses of our students, which helps them improve achievement
levels.
Mr. Speaker, the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, has chosen this
Province as the national representative in an international study being
conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development - an
international organization of thirty member countries which helps governments
with the economic and social challenges of a globalized economy. The study, What
Works in Innovation in Education, is looking at best practices in enhanced
learning through assessment.
I am pleased to inform this House that Marian Fushell, the Department of
Education's director of testing, certification and evaluation, has been named
Canada's national expert on this project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS FOOTE: Ms Fushell recently attended the OECD national experts meeting
in France where our case study on the Criterion Referenced Tests was presented.
I am pleased that our department's expertise in testing and assessment has
been recognized at this level. We are continuously looking at ways to improve
our students' performance, and to be recognized at the international level for
the work we are doing is a testament to our staff and the teachers and students
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The success of our CRT program
demonstrates that we have the expertise to take an international lead on many
common issues in education.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly would thank the minister for an advanced copy of her ministerial
statement. Looking at the statement, certainly it is always good to hear some
good news on the one hand because when we look at our students, let me say, Mr.
Speaker, that any good news is welcome.
The CRTs certainly are an indication of not necessarily of students
performance, but how the curriculum is being delivered and how effective the
curriculum is. It is rather dangerous for the minister to be talking about
achievement levels when, in actual fact, these tests are internal checks. They
are put together by the Department of Education; they are administered in the
system. They are not based on any type of national standards whatsoever, so they
are internal. So, it is very dangerous when we talk about significant learning
gains - many more students, 90 per cent. This is very, very dangerous because
any statistics, Mr. Speaker, can give a part of the picture, which the CRTs do,
they give a part of the picture, but we have to look at the overall picture. In
looking at the overall picture, let me say, that it is important that we look at
the balance and we look at what is going on in the schools; we look at the
resources that are being put in there; we look at the delivery; we look at all
aspects of it. Just to hang their hats on one particular indication is not where
we should be going. As a matter of fact, it is quite dangerous.
I would say again, that Miss Fushell will certainly represent us well. She
has the expertise, but again, I say to you, Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HEDDERSON: By leave?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HEDDERSON: I say that we have to look at the overall picture. We have
to make sure that we just do not get a narrow view of what is happening out
there.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While it is certainly a pleasure to see that the Province and the people in
the Province could play a leadership role in development of this type of
testing, I do want to sound a note of caution. A CRT, or a test of this nature,
can be a very useful tool, particularly for determining whether a particular
school district or school area needs extra resources because they are not doing
the job well enough, but I am a little worried that there can be abuses of this
type of tool as well.
We see teaching for tests going on to the exclusion of other values in
certain places and we see decisions about funding being made negatively against
schools that do not perform; in the United States, for example. So, we have to
be very careful about this type of testing and make sure it is used for positive
things as well as recognizing that it is a limited tool and only one aspect of
what is necessary to provide a good education in the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Board of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has completed its due diligence
process in examining the proposed framework agreement of the development of the
Gull Island Hydro Electric Project and have passed a resolution supporting this
development.
This vote was, however, less than unanimous. Three of the ten board members
did not vote in support of the resolution before the board. The Chair, Mr. Dean
MacDonald and one other board member, Mr. Mark Dobbin, have since tendered their
resignations. I wish to thank them for the service they have given to
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. A third board member, Mr. Bill Kelly, wishes to
continue serving on the board. All board members are to be commended for the
significant time and effort they have contributed to this issue.
I have asked the President and CEO of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Bill
Wells, to report directly to government on the deliberations of the board,
including any concerns regarding the proposed Gull Island development.
Government is most interested in hearing the specific issues and the facts
surrounding them. More importantly, we want to give them full consideration and
evaluation.
An announcement will be made in the near future on filling the position of
Chairperson and the board vacancy.
I want also, Mr. Speaker, to express regrets to my hon. the critic for Mines
and Energy on the lateness of providing this statement to him. It was singularly
unavoidable.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a very significant announcement when we consider, certainly, the
background and the expertise and experience of these two individuals. For
example, both individuals were recognized by The Financial Post for
outstanding leadership and were among the top forty under forty in 1998 and
recognized by The Financial Post .
Mr. MacDonald, for example, was Alumnus of the Year of the Business School at
Memorial University and was recognized by the Newfoundland Association of
Technical Industries. But, I say to the hon. minister, to report directly to
government on the deliberations of the board, that is not good enough. Mr.
Speaker, what we should have is the tabling of deliberations -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: - the tabling of information, the tabling of details
leading to these resignations. We would get the information ourselves, but
unfortunately this open and accountable government has chosen to exempt
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro under the provisions of their Freedom of
Information Act.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a great shock to hear that the
chairman of the board, another significant and well recognized businessperson,
and the only Labrador member of the board, has chosen to resign over the
proposal. Although he may be staying, the three people who voted against this
proposal have clearly recognized that there is a significant problem with this
kind of proposal and speaks volumes about what this government is doing; where
even a hand-picked board and appointed by government, has found that three of
its most significant members are not prepared to support a proposal such as is
now about to be presented to the people of this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions this afternoon are for the hon. the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Premier's Royal Commission stated on
Friday last week that in their numerous public meetings throughout the Province
there have been discussions against the lost windfall profits from Churchill
Falls, the total control of the Churchill River exercise by Quebec, and the
thirty years ago. The chairman said: If we don't resolve the Upper Churchill
situation this time around, this will be a very significant and fundamental sore
on our place in Canada for the next thirty-nine years.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is, due to the fact that his
government intends to give away power from the Lower Churchill agreement until
2055, which is fifty-two years from now, and do nothing with the Upper Churchill
contract, does he agree with Mr. Young that it will be, in fact, a very
significant and fundamental sore on our place in Canada?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
preamble, we have not needed a Royal
Commission for those statements to be made. They have been made in the Province
for thirty years since 1972. Every single person in the Province has been saying
those kinds of things. It is just that it has not been said before a Royal
Commission. Everyone in this House knows that. The first start by a Conservative
government, led by a Premier Moores at the time in 1975, led to the building of
a road from Happy Valley-Goose Bay into the Lower Churchill site and the
clearing of land actually for the work camp before it was cancelled. In fact,
people have been trying to deal with this issue for thirty years and everybody
in the Province is unanimous about the fact that we have foregone significant
revenues and significant opportunities primarily - and the Chair of the Royal
the adequate and appropriate role at that point in time. That is the Commission
that he is now leading up and heading up, talking about renewing and
strengthening our place in Canada.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, have spoken with the Chair and he, in fact, indicates that every
stone should be looked under, turned over and examined, every opportunity
seized, and they are hoping to make some recommendation to us as to how we can
do both things: maybe even develop the Lower Churchill and accomplish something
on the Upper Churchill at the same time, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier a very, very straightforward question:
Premier, with regard to the Lower Churchill deal, do you support moving forward
on a deal with Quebec without first seeking a better deal on the Upper
Churchill?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, every single person who has occupied the seat and the position
that I now hold, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, has done, on behalf
of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, two things. There is a former
premier in the House who, even in the short time that he was there, I am sure he
would have done it - had he been given an opportunity to have one meeting, it is
the one he would have had. It is a two-fold request. One is to the Quebec
government to see if there is any basis on which they would volunteer to reopen
negotiations on the Upper Churchill contract. There was some progress being made
for a number of years until a former, former, former premier, Premier Peckford,
decided to challenge them in court twice and lost in the Supreme Court of
Canada. That hardened the positions in Quebec, and since that time they are kind
enough to listen to you and then they say: No, thank you. We have a legal
agreement which has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, challenged by
Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are not going to voluntarily open that
contract with anybody.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the other request has been to the Government
of Canada - because this is the Chairman of the Royal Commission and the real
of Newfoundland and Labrador in the first instance by not guaranteeing us a
corridor through Quebec or financing it so we could build it ourselves. That is
the grievance that is being dealt with in the Royal Commission. Every single one
government, and each time the answer has been no, you must go ahead and do
something else because we are not going to reopen the contracts or give you
money.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not want to put words in the mouth of the hon. the Premier so I will ask
the Premier again a very straightforward question: With regard to the Lower
Churchill deal, do you support moving forward on a deal with Quebec without
first seeking a better deal on the Upper Churchill? Yes or no, Premier? That is
all I want.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, what I support and what this government supports is this: This
government supports - and the Leader of the Opposition was kind enough, because
it was shown the other day that he tries to put words in our mouths and is not
successful at it. We are allowed to give our own answers.
Mr. Speaker, what we support is this. We support moving forward with things
that are to the advantage and benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We
also support keeping every single option open and pursuing every single option
every day to fight for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for some redress on the
Upper Churchill because it has been an absolute injustice in Newfoundland and
Labrador, but we do not support the proposition that when you have done that,
when you have even challenged it in the courts, when you have checked with the
governments of the day, regardless of their political stripe, and when you know
that the answer is no, we do not support it - like Premier Peckford, just
picking a fight for the sake of looking like you are fighting when you know what
the outcome is going to be -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - and then denying yourselves the possible benefits of
some things that we can do ourselves. We are trying to do both things, Mr.
Speaker: accomplish some development and get some redress.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, a reread of Hansard will indicate that the Premier has said he
does not support what Mr. Peckford did, so therefore his answer is yes, he would
proceed with a deal on the Lower Churchill without seeking any redress or a
better deal on the Upper Churchill.
Yesterday, in conversation with the Premier, the Premier said, in answer to
our poll - the poll where 67 per cent of the people have answered this question
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: - I am surprised that anybody would have answered yes to
that question.
In other words he said yesterday he agrees with 67 per cent of the
(inaudible) -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question now.
MR. WILLIAMS: - twenty-four hours later, a completely different opinion.
Mr. Speaker, both Members of Parliament, Lawrence O'Brien and John Efford,
have spoken out against this proposed deal.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier, in light of the fact
that Mr. O'Brien has said that the Premier should wake up, smell the roses,
and do something right for a change in reference to the Lower Churchill, would
the Premier please confirm that he has not, in fact, even informed his fellow
Liberal MPs in Ottawa of the specific details of the Lower Churchill deal? And,
if not, why not? What are you trying to hide from them, Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a couple of things because I think everyone would recognize it was a
fairly lengthy answer with some
preamble. Again, just for the record, Mr.
Speaker, I did not say yes. I used the words that Hansard - that anybody can
read, and they can read my words. I gave an answer which is understandable to
people who want to read it and check the record. I did not say what he said, so
his tactic of trying to interpret what I said is fine, he can continue to use if
he likes, Mr. Speaker, and maybe we will have to rise on points of order again
to make the distinction.
Mr. Speaker, let me say this. There is a very different view here. What the
Leader of the Opposition is proposing is this: that, having asked the question,
having sought out the opportunity both with the Government of Quebec and with
we, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, want to do today - Quebec is not
willing to reopen the contract, primarily because the nature and status and
legality of it has been reaffirmed in the Supreme Court of Canada. I am sure, if
he was the Premier of Quebec, he would not go to his people and say: I think we
should voluntarily now change this contract and give the money that we are now
using in our province, even though it is a legal contract, give it back to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: So, Mr. Speaker, knowing that is the answer, we would not
then refuse to develop. We would prefer a different answer and we are going to
try to find other avenues to get redress under the Upper Churchill just like any
Newfoundlander and Labradorian would do every day.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to our federal colleagues, the issues are clear. I would love to
have our federal colleagues, all of them, plead the case more strongly and see
that we would like to have to -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to take his seat.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the facts are that this government is doing this deal out of
desperation. Those are the facts!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, according to its published annual report, the
Lower Churchill Development Corporation states that it is owned 51 per cent by
with the objective of developing all or part of the hydroelectric potential of
the Lower Churchill Basin.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is this: What role, Premier, has the
Lower Churchill Development Corporation played in these Lower Churchill
negotiations with Quebec?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A very good question, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad that it is asked so we can
have a discussion about it. The fact of the matter is this: the Lower Churchill
Development Corporation, as described, is 49 per cent owned by the Government of
Canada, 51 per cent owned by Newfoundland and Labrador. We are trying to do a
project in which we own the assets and the project 100 per cent; not to have 51
per cent come to Newfoundland and Labrador, and 49 per cent go to Canada.
current Liberal one, when asked to participate, they have just changed the rules
with respect to funding that they used to have for major project development to
get out of the business. The only successful one - and we had this discussion
with the Deputy Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Finance just one day
last week, myself and the Finance Minster, because we talk about it and bring it
up every chance we get - the only successful major megaproject that they got
involved with in Canada was Hibernia. They got involved in three others out West
that all failed and cost them money -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - and, because of failures out West, they created a
policy to say, we will not get involved in megaprojects; and when they were
asked if they were willing to participate -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - through the Lower Churchill Development Corporation,
they said: No, we do not get involved in megaprojects. We do not want to
participate in developing a hydro project in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Premier, that has not stopped them from giving $4 billion guarantees to
companies like Bombardier and Nortel, though.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in that same annual report, an option was
granted by the Province to the Lower Churchill Development Corporation with
respect to the Gull Island assets and water rights.
Mr. Speaker, my question, which I would like to ask this Premier is: What is
the status of that option to acquire the Gull Island assets and water rights?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
with respect to any loan guarantees they give or anything they get involved in.
All I can tell you is the information that we know to be a fact. They do not
not be involved in funding and building new megaprojects, which is very
different, Mr. Speaker; very different.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
AN HON. MEMBER: It is not new, boy.
PREMIER GRIMES: It is not new, it is an existing operation that they are
trying to find a way to save from collapse and lose hundreds of jobs in Canada.
They will answer that, that is their role, and our Federal MPs will answer as to
why is it the government -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: - that they are part of has a policy that does not let it
get involved in the Lower Churchill Development Corporation.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, all the options that are available under the
LCDC or elsewhere are still in place, the corporation still exists.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: I asked the hon. Premier the status of the option. He has
indicated that the corporation still exists and the option still exists.
Premier, is that, in fact, the case as well?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me answer again. The Lower Churchill
Development Corporation still exits and it has all of the assets and options
available to it that it had yesterday and today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can only have access to the information that is in the public domain, that
I can access on the Web, that are public documents.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) not what you said last week.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: I can advise the Premier, that according to the Lower
Churchill annual report this option expired yesterday, November 24, 2002.
Could the Premier please advise the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
based on his last answer, if the option has expired or not, and what are the
consequences of that expiry for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to see that that is the only source of information he has, what is
in the public domain. I am delighted to hear that.
Mr. Speaker -
MR. RIDEOUT: You wish...
PREMIER GRIMES: Is the Member for Lewisporte suggesting he might have
some other information?
MR. RIDEOUT: You never know.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: Okay, thank you. I appreciate that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to get to his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the interjection from the Member for Lewisporte, who is also a
former Premier, who indicated that he has other information. So, he is
contradicting the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. He has other
information, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: And, Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to give his answer, quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: And, Mr. Speaker, to indicate, I think, because Hansard
might not have picked it up, but the Member for Lewisporte said that it is from
inside the government, as well.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, very quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says, my only
information is from the public domain, Web sites and so on, and the former
premier says, no, he has information from inside the government; very different
information.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to take his seat.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier of our Province did not even know that the option had expired on
the Lower Churchill Development Corporation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is: Would the
Premier tell the people of our Province why he is proceeding with this deal when
the following are against it: former PC Premier Brian Peckford -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: Wait, there is more to come.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: - former Liberal Minister of Mines and Energy, Chuck Furey;
current Liberal MP Lawrence O'Brien -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: - current Liberal MP John Efford -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. WILLIAMS: A few less laughs that time.
A Chairman of his own Royal Commission, a former Chairman of Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, he ought to get to his question
quickly.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am in the middle of my question. Chairman of the Royal Commission and a
former Chairman of Newfoundland Hydro, Vic Young, myself, and eighteen of our
caucus members, and finally, most importantly, 67 per cent of the people of our
Province as confirmed by an independent poll last week.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, he ought to get to his question
quickly.
MR. WILLIAMS: Am I finished, Mr. Speaker, or can I continue?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member ought to get to his question very quickly. He is on a
supplementary and should require no
preamble.
MR. WILLIAMS: I will continue. I would ask the Premier: Premier, can you
stand up for this Province for a change and can this deal like you canned your
wasteful advertising campaign this weekend?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I guess it is a difference of approach and attitude basically. We will
gladly have the informed debate and then we will see whether or not these same
people - I do not expect ever to change Brian Peckford's mind, I can tell you
that right now today. Don't ever expect to change the mind of the Leader of
the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, and a few others.
Mr. Speaker, when we release the information, if we are fortunate enough to
get there, we will gladly have the debate and see who is for and against these
issues in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, just so the Leader of the Opposition would not want to be
mistaken, because his only information, he suggests, is from the public domain
and he is not in the Cabinet meeting, the Lower Churchill Development
Corporation option is renewed annually, on or before November 24. So he would
now - because he is not part of the Cabinet he would not know - it was renewed
again this year and is optioned for another year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we look forward to hopefully having something, unlike the
Opposition who are against something - it depends upon who you are talking to,
whether it is the Leader of the Opposition or the former Premier. Either they
are against something they have not seen, which is what the Leader of the
Opposition would have you say, or the Member for Lewisporte would say: We have
seen it all. We have our government sources and we know we are against it.
Mr. Speaker, we will gladly have an informed public debate if we are
fortunate enough to have something about growth and development and prosperity
to actually talk about, because that is what we are trying to accomplish and we
will stick with it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, in light of the announcement by Minister
Thibault last week about the probability of cod closures in our fisheries around
this Province next year, I have a couple of questions for the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Mr. Speaker, in the statement about the Gulf groundfish stocks, Fred Woodman
of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council said, both of these stocks are
seeing fewer numbers of three-year-old fish - the first age at which their
numbers can be estimated. We do not think this is a result of fewer fish being
born; they just don't seem to be surviving to age three.
Mr. Speaker, a DFO research document that I read over the weekend seems to
support this. The document says: Harp seals consume very small cod. Seventy-two
per cent of cod consumed by harp seals off the West Coast of Newfoundland were
less than or equal to twenty centimetres in length.
Mr. Speaker, why does the federal minister seem so willing to close the
fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador when his own advisors see the natural
mortality resulting from predation by seals as the number one constraint to
stock rebuilding?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the member opposite for the question, even though I am not sure what
it was he exactly asked. With regard to seals, we have in excess of 6 million
harp seals off our shores here in this Province. We also know that last year
they ate somewhere in the area of 7 million tons of some species. We also know
that roughly 150,000 metric tons of that was cod, and the figures I am quoting
come from DFO themselves. In a conversation I had with the federal minister this
morning, I mentioned seals to him, and the need to do something with them. I
certainly hope that he will take our advice and do exactly that.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Mines and Energy. I ask the Minister of
Mines and Energy: Keeping in mind the commitment of the Premier, of the minister
and Inco, concerning the hiring at Voisey's Bay, that other Labradorians would
have first priority after hiring Aboriginals, can the minister confirm to the
people of Labrador that this year no qualified Labradorian who applied for
employment at Voisey's Bay was denied while others from outside Labrador were
hired for these positions?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The agreements and the targets that were set under the Environmental
Assessment Panel and subsequently recognized in IBAs are well understood, I
think, by all of us. I am not sure that I got the hon. member's question
right. I thought I heard him ask the question, or to make the statement, that no
qualified Labradorian was hired despite the fact that many applied for work
while some from the Island did. If that is the circumstance, I would beg to
differ with that because I know many Labradorians in addition to Aboriginals
were hired for the project this year. There are also some people from the Island
portion of the Province hired as well for the project. If he wants to clarify
what his question might be with respect to that issue, I would be glad to
respond to it further.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to clarify it because the minister did not get it right; the
same as he has not gotten it right when it comes to the hiring principles.
My question, Mr. Minister, is: Were there any Labradorians who applied for
employment at Voisey's Bay, who were qualified, denied employment while people
from other areas were hired?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have no direct knowledge that, in fact, occurred or was the circumstance,
but if the hon. member has specific information with respect to people whom he
thinks appropriately should have been hired and were not, while others were
inappropriately hired and should not have been, I would be happy to have that
information examined by my officials and indeed raise the question with the
company itself; because, as I understand the circumstance, hiring from within
Labrador this year on the first phase of the project was very, very good,
exceeding targets that were all agreed to, and we hope that it will continue
that way because in fact that was the intent expressed in the IBAs and it grew
out of the Environmental Management Assessment Panel that was signed off by
everybody in 1998.
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador
West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister, that indeed took place. People did not receive
employment for jobs they were qualified for, and the minister responsible for
Labrador, I say to the minister, also raised these concerns so maybe you should
talk to the minister in your Cabinet who is responsible for Labrador.
Will the minister commit to the reviewing and enforcement that people from
Labrador will receive employment opportunities from Voisey's Bay when
construction starts next year? And, will he go one step further and guarantee
that any development of the Lower Churchill will contain the same hiring
provisions?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will indeed confirm that this government, through my department, will
continue to do its job in monitoring what is happening with respect to the
development of the Lower Churchill. I would also ask the hon. member to also go
one step further and commit to the people of the Province and his constituents,
inasmuch as this is a very significant issue with him, that he bring forward the
details to my attention so I can do the right thing in terms of what he is
alleging to be a circumstance but provides no specific information around, and
that is wrongful hiring practices on the project. If he has something to expose,
if he has details, if he has information that I should be examining, I would ask
him to bring it forward as an hon. member should do and as a good representative
from Labrador should do, and this government, through this minister, will
undertake to do what we should do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today I am tabling the Public Accounts of the Province for the financial year
ending March 31, 2002, as required by the Financial Administration Act.
This year as well, Mr. Speaker, we have provided a brochure to go along with
the Public Accounts. It is important to note that these financial statements
present the Province's financial activities and our financial position in a
complete and transparent manner. Again this year they have received a clean,
unqualified, audit opinion by the Auditor General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a change.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, it is not a change, I say to the member opposite. It
is not a change. It has been consistent.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the Member for Bonavista, that it is not a change. The Auditor
General has consistently given us clean audited statements, as presented by the
Public Accounts information, just to be factual, and I think it is important for
that.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 26.5(
a) of the Financial Administration
Act, I am tabling one Order in Council relating to funding pre-commitments for
the years 2003, 2004 to 2007 and 2008 fiscal years.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to table today before this House the
Audited Financial Statements of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador Pooled
Pension Fund for the year ending December 31, 2001.
It is important to note that government continues to make annual payments of
$40 million to the Public Service Pension Plan, increasing to $60 million in
2003, and $76 million to the Teachers' Pension Plan. As well, $27 million in
annual special payments are being paid into the other two plans. This is part of
government's commitment to substantially reduce the unfunded liabilities of
the $3.5 billion plans.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to table the 2002
Drinking Water Safety Annual Report, as committed by government through the
Source to Tap drinking water initiative launched in 2001.
The 2002 Drinking Water Safety Report was released in September of this year.
The report was provided to all Members of the House of Assembly at that time.
All municipalities, local service districts and other community organizations
throughout the Province have received the report as well.
Thank you.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave
to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Access To Information
And Protection Of Privacy Act." Bill 25.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask
leave to introduce the following private member's resolution:
WHEREAS the percentage of the Province's population over the age of
sixty-five is increasing faster than any other province in Canada; and
WHEREAS an aging population requires specific attention to medical treatment,
quality of life issues, affordable prescription drugs, home support services and
other direct and indirect supports; and
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is not responding to the
health needs of the seniors in our Province;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
make public immediately a detailed action plan to respond to the long-term care
needs of the Province's aging population.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition signed by hundreds of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. Mr. Speaker, the petition reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative
session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador;
WHEREAS the government has requested the Board of Regents to consider a name
change of our University; and
WHEREAS Memorial University of Newfoundland is excluded under the
Newfoundland and Labrador Act; and
WHEREAS publicly funded universities can be named for a region of a Province,
and
WHEREAS when other political entities change, the name of the university
within it did not; and
WHEREAS our educational mandate is not limited to this Province; and
WHEREAS the University is on the Island of Newfoundland; and
WHEREAS the first university in other provinces did not reflect the entire
name of the province; and
WHEREAS there will be enormous costs to undergo this name change; and
WHEREAS there are enormous disadvantages to not having a geographic identity
attached to the University; and
WHEREAS another proposed university in this Province is more suitable to have
Labrador added to its name;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to retain the current name - Memorial University of Newfoundland; and
As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today that has been brought forward
by hundreds of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and I understand there have
been petitions circulated and petitions returned to members of this Legislature
with between 6,000 and 7,000 names on them, to reflect people's
dissatisfaction with changing the name of Memorial University of Newfoundland as
it presently exists today.
What I find intriguing about this particular petition that I am presenting,
Mr. Speaker, is that a lot of the names are signed by Legions in the Province
here. This particular petition that I am presenting, the Royal Canadian Legion
of Botwood, the Royal Canadian Legion of Bonavista, have signed and submitted
this petition, along with other names right across the Province, to say that
they want the name of Memorial University to stay as it presently exists today.
They see no benefits in changing the name of this institution which has been in
existence now for the past fifty-three years. It is a name that is known, not
only in Newfoundland and Labrador but right across the world, as Memorial
University of Newfoundland.
At a time when we see the cost of tuition going up, we see enrollment
dropping, people are asking if now is the time to get involved in a cost of
changing the name of this institution.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, just a minute to clue up.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. FITZGERALD: I understand that there are other petitions that other
members on both sides of the House have been presented with, a similar petition
that will be presented here in a time that they see fit. The message is loud;
the message is clear. They want to maintain the name of our University, the
Memorial University of Newfoundland, as it presently exists, and the people
signing the petition see no reason or no good whatsoever in having the name of
this institution changed.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of people from
Labrador West and a number of people have signed as well from Trinity North. The
petition reads:
WHEREAS in 1998 the Province provided funding for four new MS drug therapies;
and
WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program only provides
medical coverage for seniors under the Senior Citizen's Drug Subsidy Program
and people on income support; and
WHEREAS all citizens in other Canadian provinces can receive assistance with
the high cost of MS drugs, using co-payment and sliding scale programs, not
limited to social assistance income levels; and
WHEREAS these drugs can improve significantly the quality of life for people
with MS.
We, the undersigned, ask the House of Assembly to direct the government to
implement a co-payment or sliding scale program for these drugs so that people
can get financial assistance with the high cost, as in other Canadian provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I have presented this petition during a number of sessions of
the House of Assembly. Ever since I have been elected I have been addressing
this concern, because what this government is doing to the people of the
Province has nothing whatsoever to do with their ability to pay. It has to do
with what they require the people who work in this Province to do to their own
personal lives before they will. If it was a question of not being able to pay,
that is one argument, Mr. Speaker, but that is not the case in this situation.
Every other jurisdiction in this country assists their citizens with the cost
of these high-cost drugs but our Province insists, and this government insists,
that the people of this Province financially ruin themselves, their future,
financially jeopardize their children's education and not be able to save any
RRSPs, if they are saving any. They require them to liquidate all of these
things, to spend the money on these drugs, to get rid of any new vehicle they
may have, reduce their income down to income support levels, and then this
government will provide assistance.
Mr. Speaker, that frankly, is not good enough. This government has a role and
an obligation to the people of this Province - who work hard contributing their
taxes to the well-being of this Province - to assist them as every other
province in this country does with their citizens. The cost of these drugs is
such that people cannot afford to pay for them out of their paycheques. These
are high-cost drugs. They average anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000 a month. It is
not only MS, Mr. Speaker, it is people with Alzheimer's; people who require
hormone replacement drugs. All of these specialized drugs can greatly enhance
the quality of life of people in this Province and yet this government refuses
to help out anyone who requires it. Mr. Speaker, if a person is on income
support, the drugs are provided for them.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, if somebody is on income support the drugs are
paid for by this government. If people have an insurance plan that provides
coverage that is fine, but there are many, many insurances plans in this
Province, particularly in the private sector, where these drugs are not covered,
or if they are, there is a lifetime maximum on the coverage provided. At the
level of purchasing these drugs, that lifetime maximum is reached in a very
short period of time, leaving the people with no coverage for any other thing
that they may need in the future.
I strongly urge this government to provide and come up with a policy of a
co-payment and sliding scale program that will assist the people in this
Province who need their help.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am wondering if I might take the opportunity, with the approval of the
House, to table as well other documents that I have to table that were here on
the table with the - mixed of the other three -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is just the tabling. It is not to speak to them.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I did. I did ask for leave and I am wondering, with the
permission of the House, if I might table these seven special warrants?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member has asked for leave to revert to Presenting Reports and
tabling.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to
section 28(4)(
e) of the Financial Administration Act, I am
tabling seven special warrants relating to the fiscal year 2002-2003.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Petitions?
The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very proud to stand here today and present this petition on behalf of
the local service districts of Gander Bay North, Gander Bay South, and Main
Point, Davidsville and the 302 residents who have signed the petition.
The petition is worded as follows:
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament
Assembled;
WHEREAS the Gander Bay Highway from Main Point to Gander is one of the
busiest secondary roads in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and
WHEREAS a large number of Gander Bay residents and others use this road daily
to commute back and forth to work and for other personal reasons; and
WHEREAS the extensive growth of alders and brush along Route 330 has made it
extremely dangerous;
THEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to provide funding under the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs
current Job Creation Program to correct this serious problem.
Mr. Speaker, the road in question, Gander Bay Highway, as most people know,
is one of the busiest secondary highways in the Province. It is also one of the
narrowest secondary highways in this Province. The shoulders of that road now
have deteriorated almost to the point where there is hardly anything left. Where
there is shoulder left, not only alders are growing to the shoulder but they are
growing up in the shoulders of the road. For that full twenty-five to thirty
miles of highway there is not one place, not one section, where there is an
extra passing lane.
Also, Mr. Speaker, in that area it has been noted as one of the best areas in
the Province where moose have been most prevalent. So, Mr. Speaker, in addition
to the danger aspect of the road, work is also needed in that part of my
district. It is one of the areas where work is probably needed more than any
other part of Bonavista North.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge the Minister of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs or the Premier's Office, whoever will be making the final decisions on
these make-work projects, to seriously consider applications from the Gander Bay
North, Gander Bay South and Main Point, Davidsville areas.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 7, and the minister will be closing debate
on second reading of Bill 15.
MR. SPEAKER: Order 7, Bill 15,
An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.
The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.
MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying when I concluded debate last Tuesday, I think it was, I want
to thank all hon. members who spoke in support of this bill which will ban the
use of hand-held cellphones by drivers while driving in our Province. I want to
congratulate everybody for being willing to lead the country in taking this sort
of action, and we are doing so, people should know, because it is the right
thing to do. Using cellphones while driving is a danger to life and limb and it
is costing our automobile insurance policyholders a lot of money and it can
continue doing so into the future.
Mr. Speaker, we proposed this bill because it is the right thing to do. It is
the right thing to do for safe driving in our Province. It is the right thing to
do to try to minimize injuries and it is the right thing to do to try to
minimize insurance rates.
Some of the speakers raised questions about whether or not this will cause
the police forces in the Province any additional problems. The fact, Mr.
Speaker, is that the police in our Province have encouraged us to pass this bill
because they have told us it will make their job easier. It will help them to
more clearly identify when somebody is breaking the law in this regard. Right
now people can be penalized for using cellphones while driving if the officer
judges that they are driving without due care and attention. The reality and
practice is that that is a difficult call for policemen to make and the
consequence has been that I do not think there have been many tickets given on
that basis in our Province, and so many policemen have asked us to do this. The
police forces have indicated their support for this kind of initiative. It will
not cause them any additional work because the law is there now making it an
offence to drive without due care and attention. This just makes the offence
more specific and makes it easier for a policeman to find offenders.
Some people also suggested that this would be an additional burden on police
forces in our Province who are already understaffed. The reality, Mr. Speaker,
is that, to some extent I guess, we do not require the number of police people
that we have had in the past because of the decline in population in the
Province, and also because of the increasing technology, it does not require as
many police officers to enforce the laws as it did in the past.
Some other speakers questioned whether or not this would have the support of
the wireless industry in the country, Mr. Speaker. As I said the last time I was
speaking, I met with the president of the wireless industry in Canada and a
senior official of Aliant more than a year ago on this. They indicated that they
did not support this sort of legislation. Actually, they indicated they would
come back and talk to me some more, but the fact is that nobody from that
industry has indicated that they have a problem with this. They have had a long
time - they have had over a year-and-a-half, I guess - that they have known that
we planned to do this, and they have not initiated any discussions. I know
publicly, as some people in that industry have indicated, that they think this
is unnecessary, even though they admit and they go out and advertise themselves
and try and educate people not to use cellphones while they are driving.
Everybody admits it is a problem, but some of those people felt that we should
not legislate against it. I think it is not a problem for them because they
recognize that most people will use the hands-free phone instead of the
hand-held phone, and consequently there will not be any significant decline in
the use of the wireless services.
As some of the members indicated, Mr. Speaker, a lot of the research and a
lot of public opinion feels that we should ban the hands-free as well as
hand-held because the problem is getting up in the conversations. I agree with
that line of thought, but I think we are only able to propose going as far as
the public is prepared to go. At this time, I think that the public is prepared
to support the banning of hand-held but not the banning of hands-free. I think
this is a reasonable first step, and I am sure the public are going to be very
happy with this initiative.
Some people have raised the question of the number of demerit points that
will be involved in this offence. While the bill itself does not stipulate the
number of demerit points that are involved, the demerit points are determined by
how an offence is categorized by the Registrar of Vehicles. This offence will be
categorized as imprudent driving - it is under the classification of imprudent
driving - driving without due care and attention, and all offences in that
category require four demerit points. That is why that will be the case for this
offence.
Many members have indicated that we should make sure that we properly
publicize what we are doing here, and inform the public and give the public
adequate time to become familiar with the new law and to make preparations in
their vehicles for abiding by the law. We certainly intend to do that. We will
proclaim the law, if this House passes it, within a few months, I would think,
after it is passed, in order to give people an opportunity to become familiar
with the new law.
AN HON. MEMBER: What about demerits?
MR. NOEL: Pardon me?
AN HON. MEMBER: Demerits.
MR. NOEL: I just spoke about demerits.
Mr. Speaker, one other issue that was raised in this House was the question
of whether this will lead to any reduction in the price of automobile insurance
in our Province. I can only tell members that, insofar as it leads to a
reduction in the number of accidents and the number of claims made on insurance
policies over the long run it will result in a reduction in insurance costs, but
that is not going to be anything significant in the short run. As with many of
the things that we can do and we have tried to do to try to reduce the cost of
accidents and the cost of insurance, this may have some long-term effects on the
cost of insurance but it is not going to do anything to deal with the dramatic
increases of 10 per cent to 20 per cent to 30 per cent that we have been seeing
in each of the past several years.
There was just a story on the weekend, Mr. Speaker, of the problem the
Metrobus in St. John's is having with automobile insurance, and their
insurance rates for the present year have increased from some $300,000 to, I
think, about $900,000. While that is not typical of the kind of insurance rate
increases we are seeing, there are many increases of that sort of significance.
It is important for us to do all that we can to control the cost of
insurance, and we have been trying to do that. We issued a consultation paper
over a year ago and we proposed some fifty-one, I think, options for changing
our insurance system in the Province that we think could lead to substantial
savings over the long run. The one proposal that we asked the public to think
about was to restrict the right to compensation for soft tissue pain and
suffering injuries, and our evidence is that such a change could lead to a
reduction of some 35 per cent in the cost of liability insurance in our
Province, saving policyholders some $40 million a year if the Province were to
decide that it wanted to go in that direction.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, there was a strong and extensive campaign against
that proposal carried out throughout the Province and the result was, public
opinion does not seem to be in favour of going in that kind of direction. Unless
we are prepared to do something significant like that, there is very little that
government can do to control the cost of insurance. The only effective thing you
can do is to control the cost of claims.
While members on the other side have raised questions in this debate about
whether this will have an effect on reducing the cost of insurance, they have
not had much to say over the past year about our consultation paper, and I have
not heard many ideas from them about what may be done in this Province to help
reduce the cost of automobile insurance significantly. As a matter of fact, the
law firm of the Leader of the Opposition was one of the participants in the
campaign against moving to this sort of system of insurance. While that may be
justified and while people in our Province may not want to adopt that sort of
system, people have to understand the reality that the only way we are going to
significantly reduce the cost of insurance is to reduce the cost of claims, and
that is one option for doing so. Unless people are willing to make those kinds
of choices, there is not very much we are going to be able to do as a government
and as a Province to control the cost of insurance, Mr. Speaker.
MR. FITZGERALD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): On a point of order, the hon. the Member for
Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that people on this
side of the House have given you an idea already on how you can lower insurance
in this Province, and one is by lowering the taxation that you are presently
charging consumers in this Province to purchase insurance: 20 per cent, the
highest insurance coverage in all of Canada, with not only HST and GST added on,
but a 4 per cent hidden insurance tax as well, that your government charges an
extra taxation for HST and GST, in addition to a policy tax.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: That is one way you can reduce insurance in this Province
by 20 per cent, I say to the minister.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
I would ask the minister to conclude his remarks. His time is pretty well up.
MR. NOEL: The hon. member makes a reasonable point. The fact is that
insurance taxes amount to about 20 per cent and produce about $75 million in
revenues for our Province each year, but as is so typical with the Opposition,
Mr. Speaker, they call for the reduction in all kinds of taxes and they call for
increasing in all kinds of expenditures and they will not specify where we
should reduce expenditures.
AN HON. MEMBER: You cannot have it both ways.
MR. NOEL: You cannot have it both ways is the fact of the matter. There
is no point in advocating cutting all sources of revenue and increasing all
sources of expenditure. If members opposite want us to take that kind of
initiative, they should be more specific about the consequences of such an
action.
Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act," read
a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.
(Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 8, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend
The Automobile Insurance Act, Bill 9.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile
Insurance Act." (Bill 9)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.
MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the appointment of a
Consumer Advocate to represent consumer interests inherent before the Public
Utilities Board of the Province when there are requests by the insurance
companies in the Province for rate increases.
The minister is presently able to make such an appointment, as people will
realize from the fact that we appointed a Consumer Advocate for the present
hearings being requested by a Facility Association within the past couple of
weeks.
The other aspect of this bill, Mr. Speaker, provides that the costs
encountered by the Advocate, the Advocate's salary and any expenses the
Advocate runs up, will be paid for by the Public Utilities Board, just as is the
case with the Consumer Representative who represents consumer interests in
regard to increases in electricity rates in the Province. This is reasonable and
fair because the board will then charge back the insurance industry who,
presumably, to some small extent, will charge back their customers, and those
are the people who will benefit from any reductions that we are able to get in
the cost of automobile insurance in the Province.
Mr. Speaker, for the past year, almost two years ago since I became minister
responsible for automobile insurance regulation in our Province, when I first
became minister we looked at what could be done to try to implement some of the
recommendations of the all-party committee that was established in 1996 and
reported in 1998. It had not been given much attention, I guess, over the
previous couple of years because insurance rates were in the down part of their
cycle and there was not a demand from the public that government take action,
such as was the case when that committee was set up.
Mr. Speaker, we were getting indications at that time that there were going
to be substantial increases in insurance rates in our Province. We felt we had
to look at what we may be able to do so we reviewed the report of that committee
and we put together a consultation paper which we put before the people of the
Province. We had a pretty extensive consultation, rather intently, for some six
months or so, and it is going on today, Mr. Speaker. People are still talking
about the extraordinary costs that they are facing in all insurance policies in
our Province, as is the case throughout the country and throughout the world are
being increased substantially. Insurance is becoming a significantly increasing
proportion of household expenditures and of business costs. I had one business
that came to me a while ago and indicated they were being refused liability
insurance by their current provider and by alternative providers in the
Province. They worked at it for some time and were eventually able to acquire a
policy but their rate for the year was increased from some $25,000 for the
previous year to some $300,000 for the current year. That was for liability
insurance in the retail business.
Many people are seeing significant increases in the cost of automobile
insurance. It looks like that is going to continue, Mr. Speaker, and we have to
do everything we can to try to minimize those increases. Most of the fifty-one
items we had in our consultation had pretty broad public support but as I have
said, the one item that we feel could have made a significant difference to the
cost of insurance was the proposal to reduce compensation or restrict the right
to compensation for soft tissue pain and suffering injuries. There certainly
does not seem to be majority support in our Province for that, or at least that
was the case last year, Mr. Speaker. Whether opinions have changed as a result
of what has been happening in the industry, I guess we will all have to make a
determination over the next while. We are continuing to do that as we prepare to
present our bill for automobile insurance reform within the next few days in
this House.
Unless we are prepared to do something significant to reduce the costs of
claims that are made by insurance policyholders and by people who are injured
and make some reasonable compromises, then people can only face substantially
increasing insurance costs. As I guess most people know, one of the things we
are looking at is the possibility of bringing a choice system into the Province.
That would enable people to choose to have either a non-restricted insurance
policy in which they can claim for all kinds of injuries, including soft tissue
pain and suffering, and that sort of thing or a restricted policy which would
save them a lot of money in insurance premiums but would restrict what they may
be able to claim for if they are injured.
Mr. Speaker, insurance is a serious problem for our constituents; all kinds
of insurance. As I say, automobile insurance in particular. We are looking to do
a number of things. We have three bills in the House this sitting. One, to ban
the use of hand-held cellphones by drivers - this one - and the one to increase
penalties for impaired driving. Those sort of offences in the Province.
Of course, later on we will be coming with a more complete bill to deal with
more extensive reform.
Mr. Speaker, we intend to do all we can to try to help control the cost of
insurance in the Province and I encourage all members to look open-mindedly at
the alternatives that are out there. We are not going to be able to get the kind
of reductions our people want unless we are prepared to take some dramatic
action. I think we have to even review some of our own positions in this regard
and prepare to change our minds if it looks like the need for reform is
increasing, if it looks like the cost of insurance is becoming unbearable for so
many of our people and if it looks like there may be alternatives out there that
can help solve some of these problems.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take a few minutes to speak to Bill 9 here as well. It is
important that the public interest of the - you properly represent it. The
insurance industry is not an industry that is widely understood. There are
always a lot of details in insurance and because of that, I believe a lot of
people have shown very little interest. They go out and renew their insurance,
and as soon as that painful part of writing the cheque is over they put it to
one side again. Unless, of course, the unfortunate happens that you need your
insurance. I think that is what the general public has with insurance, or the
vast majority of us.
To think about the need of an advocate brings to question the position of the
superintendent of insurance. What role does that position play? It is a role
that goes out and sees that industry plays fair with our people; that they do
not go out there and not follow the law of the land; that they do have to follow
the law of the land and they do have to put reasonable insurance rates, I
suppose, in front of the people. At least as the law of the land stands. It is a
regulated industry. I do not know how far we can go out there to regulate it
more than what it is, and exactly what role an advocate would play.
The need was brought forward in the consultation paper that the minister has
spoken about. It was a paper that was out, had gone around this Province and
sought the input of the people in general. It was a very extensive piece of work
that was out there a few years ago and it brought back a number of regulations,
or a number of recommendations, and this is just one of them.
It was a controversial document. As the minister has said, the fact that it
had gone out there and suggested limited compensation for soft tissue injuries
is something that did not go very well in this Province. It was seen as a way
for the industry, I suppose, to get away without paying the people who were due
the benefits that they were due. It was a very, very gray area. It was not an
area where it was black and white. It was not a bone broken as such (inaudible)
it was. Soft tissue injuries was something that was always debatable. I think
one of the things that people seen out there, as they protested the move towards
this limitation, was the fact that it put a lot of power into the hands of the
industry. Today, the industry has the means to go out there and fight the
individual. The individual, obviously, cannot stand up to the industry
(inaudible) and the will of the industry that can drag out those things for
years on end. Individuals out there with very limited resources have to have
something that is going to be answered in a very short period of time.
I think when you go into the soft tissue injuries it is something that could
have gone on and dragged out, and would have left the vast majority of us, who
had gone out there and experienced soft tissue injuries, any compensation. That
was how the people felt. They really felt that if they were going to buy
insurance they wanted to know what they were getting. They wanted to be assured
that they were insured. I think when the soft tissue injury came in there, it
certainly changed the balance of power and how they were going to be able to
receive any benefits from the companies. As I said, they certainly felt that the
balance of power had certainly gone into the industries hands.
However, as the minister said, insurance is going up, and it is increasing
considerably. At what levels will it level off, and how will it level off? Will
we have to come to some kind of conclusion that we just cannot afford the
insurance as we have noted in the past? People today are saying, no, that they
do want insurance, that is a complete insurance; but, I suppose, the debate will
always be one that goes on and on because the levels - at some point we are
going to say: Well, we have to have some level of insurance, but not always the
level that we historically had.
What can we do to go out there and help keep prices - I mean, people have
said no to the soft tissue injuries, the limitations that we have there. What
are the other means? Maybe in debate today, as we continue on with this bill,
maybe some of those things will come out or some suggestions on how we should go
out there and keep it at a reasonable level, but yet respect the rights of the
people who go out of there. I think the thing is, anybody will always know that
once you find yourself in a position of needing your insurance - and it is the
most vulnerable time you are. You don't have the means. You probably don't
have the physical wellness to get out there to fight the battle. The tiredness,
the fatigue and all those things that you hear people talk about: I cannot fight
as if I were a well man, as I would two months or a year ago. I think that is a
point that people have seen. They know and understand that if they find
themselves in that position, it is not a position that they can get out of then.
Some of the suggestions, I suppose, that people have gone out and looked at
is that they see insurance companies go out there and behave in such a way. How
they do business. It does not seem to be in a way to keep their bottom line
down. When it comes to, for example, the windshield situation; if you have
insurance your windshield is at one price, but if you don't and you are buying
it on your own, it is another price. I mean those are things that really take
people - in saying that this industry is out there and they are taking us for
what we are worth. If a windshield has a certain value with insurance it should
have the same value without, but that is not how the industry goes. It looks as
if the industry is always gouging the customers. I mean, it has been a long-time
debate as well, and that is certainly not good.
Investments are a big part of the industry. They will go out there and take
my money today, and they are going to be giving me insurance, then, for the rest
of the year. As they invest that money into - and that is something that has not
been factored in. When we look at the industry and talk about the profit-loss
side of the industry, they can claim that, yes, we need to raise it, we are
losing money today, but it is not always factored in, the fact that they have
been investing our money for 364 days. That has been a big part of the industry,
the industry is built on that, but yet when they talk about the losses they
have, that is not factored in there.
I think the fact that they don't have to show financial statements to the
Public Utilities Board, vis--vis this government, on exactly how they are
doing, certainly gives them the opportunity to be less than forward or upfront
with the people of this Province. I think those are some of the things we have
to look at that would make the insurance industry more accountable to the
people, at least to be open.
If they are having losses, well then that is fine, you know and understand
that you are going to have to change it. But I don't think we always
understand and appreciate the fact, when we know that there are certain figures
being put out there by the industry itself, as has been rightfully pointed out,
that show they are talking about it to their shareholders, that they are making
this amount of money, then on the other hand they will turn around and tell us,
at the same time, that, no, they are losing.
The Facility Association is another part, I suppose, that has certainly
bothered people. A lot of people have ended up in the Facility Association
without ever knowing they were in there. They have one accident and they find
themselves in such a high rate program, that it is unacceptable. I mean, there
are people who have had just one accident and have had quite a number of years,
up to twenty years, of accident free driving, with no speeding tickets and
nothing against their record. Yet, the industry has been been able to put people
into this without any notification. Even the fact that without an accident as
such - you have to cancel your insurance, you move away for six months, and when
you go back to renew, at that time you can find yourself in the unfortunate
position of being in the Facility Association, which is extremely expensive and
unaffordable for many people.
As well, when you reach a certain age, the fact that you are eighty years
old, people have found, who are in perfect health and have no reason to give up
driving, that they cannot afford the insurance. They are living on a limited
income. At that point, for no other reason than you have reached the age of
eighty, instead of being rewarded, you are being penalized for reaching that age
and you can no longer afford to drive because you cannot afford to buy insurance
to be out on the road. It is very, very unfortunate.
One of the things that went out in some of the documents that are out there,
that would have a big impact on trying to keep insurance at reasonable levels,
so that the struggle between the people in the insurance companies wouldn't be
as great, the demand wouldn't be there, is more frequent highway patrols. A
part of my duty, I suppose, I was called upon as to the fact that the number of
officers are not out patrolling our highways today, and we mentioned back in the
cellphone usage, how do you regulate it if you do not have the numbers? I think
it has been shown that we do not have the number of officers today on our
highways and out there patrolling to be able to enforce and to be able to see
that we are staying down, that speed limits are kept within reason and driving
practices are kept to the safest that they can be.
Many times they are just not there in numbers and, when the enforcement is
not there, you know, if you can get away with something so many times, the trend
goes, what stops you is an accident. From the accident, of course, is the
insurance that follows behind, and then collectively it is the number of
accidents that has driven the insurance rates to where they are.
One of the things that I hear, and especially in rural Newfoundland, is
vehicle inspections. They certainly made a big impact on the business community,
with the feedback that came back a number of years ago when they took out
vehicle inspections. On top of that is the fact that out on our highways there
are certain vehicles out there that just should not be on our highways. When you
are going to have a spot check once or twice a year at most, to go out there and
check those vehicles, it is not enough to deter people from being out there. The
odds of getting caught again, it is not big enough against them to go out there
and do something about the vehicles that they have. It is just that they need to
get from point A to point B, and they get out there and think about their safety
and they only consider their safety. If you knew the machines that you were
meeting as you were going down the highway, I think you would have a different
opinion of vehicle inspections.
MR. NOEL: Do you think we should bring back annual inspections?
MR. YOUNG: Well, it has certainly been out there. It is something that
has come my way. Being from a very rural district, I have seen it from the
business community. The condition of the vehicles when they come in for repairs
are unsafe, but yet they do not have a means to keep those vehicles in the
garage, to insist that they do the job to put them up to the standards that they
should be. They will just take their machines back.
I have seen situations while I have been there - I live close to a business
as such - where a person was going to take their vehicle back. It so happened
that the RCMP happened to come by at the time and stop the vehicle from being
taken away from the garage. That is the only thing that stopped it. There are
not enough officers to be there to see those kinds of circumstances to ensure
it. That is what concerns people in that industry. I know they talk about it
from a self-serving point of view, the fact that they lost an amount of
business, and going there you would see it, but it is also the safety point.
It gets brought up to me because, being the critic for Government Services
and Lands, they really think that something should be done there from the safety
point of view. As well, I guess, it is self-serving. It is a double role, that
they would bring it to my attention.
MR. NOEL: I don't think the public would agree (inaudible).
MR. YOUNG: I think the public are not in favour of it because they do not
understand so many times what is coming down the road after them.
At the same time, there was another vehicle in my neighbourhood - there was a
very serious accident. This individual was coming down and the steering fell off
the vehicle and there was a head-on collision. There was a serious accident and
it was because this vehicle should not have been on the road, from what I
understand. Those are the kinds of things, if you think about them. If you are
driving down that road and if you only knew the vehicles that are coming on it,
I think if you appreciated the situation you would probably change your views.
I am out there and I maintain and take care of my vehicle. I try to drive
within reason. I have family. There are a lot of circumstances. If the vehicle
coming towards me had not been kept up, I would have been concerned, but I am
not really aware of that in most cases. If you are fortunate enough to be around
a mechanical garage or whatever, you start to hear the stories more by being
around that environment. As I said, in the past, a lot of those conversations
come my way now because they know the role that I play in my district, not in my
district but in a part of government as being critic for the department that is
responsible.
One of the other things that I find that has been coming up with me is the
snow clearing. We go out there and we want and expect safety, and part of that
safety is road clearing. Last week, I had someone call me who had an accident at
8:00 a.m. because the roads had not been salted and sanded. As far as they knew
and understood, it was supposed to be done at 5:00 a.m. with the weather
conditions. The weather conditions were such that it needed to be done but it
was not, and at 8:00 a.m. they were going down, there was black ice, and there
had been nothing done with the highway at that point.
That was brought to my attention but it was also brought to my attention in
my neighbourhood, in my own backyard again. The road from Plum Point to
Roddickton is where a lot of people go back and forth, who have working
obligations. If you are going to be living in Plum Point and teaching in
Roddickton or Englee, you have to get there. You have to be there at such a time
that the roads needs to be maintained long before 8:00 a.m. What is happening is
that so many times you are out there and driving with just one lane being open
at 7:00 a.m. It is just too late to be able to get out and have work obligations
somewhere else.
The thing in rural Newfoundland that I was told, and we were told so many
times, is that you cannot expect to have a job in your own small community, that
you may have to travel up to an hour. If we were going to put industry there, or
encourage industry, you cannot expect it in every community but it would be in a
distance as such that you can go there and find employment without moving out of
rural Newfoundland. I think what is happening now in rural Newfoundland with the
cutbacks in the highways is that you cannot go out there and work in a community
out our way because if you are going to make your commitment to be at work at
8:30 a.m. or 9:00 a.m., you just cannot get there. There is not a safe driving
environment provided for you. I hear that time and time again as the people have
been travelling in particular on that road. I know it is not only that road but
that is the one that I get most of my complaints about in my district.
The 430 itself, this is where this particular accident happened. It was just
north of Port Saunders, heading north. This accident happened at 8:00 a.m. and,
if there is a need to have your roads passable and in good condition, you need
it by then. There were not any other weather conditions at the time to stop it;
it was something that happened overnight with the temperatures.
That really concludes what I had to say about the insurance. It is just the
difficulties of knowing where the industry stands. I think even though the
Superintendent of Insurance is out there and plays a role to see that it lives
by the law, and is being fair and being regulated in that way, there are still a
lot of shades of gray there and there are a lot of ways that I think we can go
out there and tighten up a little to find out more of what is happening. I think
if we do some of the things that are in our control, such as I just mentioned
between the highway patrols, the vehicle inspections and the snow clearing,
those kind of things, I think, would bring back the insurance levels and would
take the pressure off that we see today. Because I think some of them are just
being created out of not having the proper preventative things done to make our
driving safer in this Province.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to say a few words at this time on the bill,
An Act To Amend The
Automobile Insurance Act, to provide for a Consumer Representative and to have
the fees, I guess, importantly, of the Consumer Representative be paid for, it
says in the act, by the Public Utilities Commission; but the effect of that is
that the fees and the costs of the Advocate are actually paid for by the
applicant, in this case, one that is currently before the board, the Facility
Association or by the insurance industry because, at the end of the application,
the normal proceeding is that the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities
will add to its order that the fees of the board would be paid for by the
applicant. In this case, those fees would include the costs of the Consumer
Advocate, although I think at some point, certainly in relation to other
applications before the Public Utilities Commission, and perhaps the minister
can answer this question, I know that previous Consumer Advocates were given a
specific budget by government when they were engaged, and I would wonder - and
perhaps the minster can tell us - how there would be some controls on that.
I know from my own experience in the past as being a representative of the
Consumers' Association, and intervening in hydro rate applications or
telephone company applications when the telephones were under the jurisdiction
of the Newfoundland and Labrador Public Utilities Board, that there was - not a
budget for that purpose - an expense involved and there was a lot of decision
making that had to go into how much money you would actually spend; whether you
could afford to hire an expert, whether an expert was necessary in a particular
case, because quite often these are highly specialized individuals, in the case
of usually actuaries, who are being engaged to challenge or look at the rates
being proposed, and these people charge a pretty hefty rate. They are usually
not available in the Province. You have to bring somebody in from other parts of
Canada and sometimes the United States, who charge fees like $200 an hour or
more for their advice and their witness fees.
There are a couple of ways of doing that. One is by the government
establishing a budget for Consumer Advocate. The other, which was the one that
applied when I was doing these things, because the Consumers' Association did
not have any budget to conduct these interventions, you had to actually apply to
the board at the end of the hearing and the board would decide whether your fees
were appropriate and adequate, and only then would they decided that they would
be paid. It would be based on some sort of determination that the contribution
that had been made by the intervener, in this case the Consumers' Association,
was of assistance to the process.
When you have a situation here where the legislation is saying that it shall
be the cost to the board, are we going to have that monitored by the board or is
the minister, in his role as minister, going to have some influence on the
budget to be associated with the costs of intervening? Perhaps the minister can
answer that when he concludes his remarks. Clearly, there is a need for some
direction in that regard because you cannot ordinarily have an advocate, or a
lawyer in this case, who would normally be a lawyer or law firm, deciding, of
their own accord, how much money they are going to spend on something. Somebody
has to make that determination.
It is important, I would say, that there be a Consumer Representative and a
Consumer Advocate at these hearings. The one that is currently before the board,
for example, has a filing of a document probably two-and-a-half or three inches
thick that I have here in front of me and it is an application by something
called Facility Association, which most people probably have not heard of. This
is set up by the Insurance Act. It is located in Toronto, according to its
letterhead, and this is where you are sent if the insurance industry decides
that you are high risk.
People find themselves assigned to the Facility Association sometimes for
very peculiar reasons. I have heard of cases, for example, where a young person
aged nineteen was assigned to the Facility Association because she had been
"involved in an accident". What had happened, Mr. Speaker, was that
she had been driving a relative's car, her grandparent's car, and she was
struck from behind by somebody else when she was stopped at a red light. It was
not her fault but she was "involved in an accident" and when she
applied for insurance in her own name she was considered high risk because she
was a young person who had been involved in an accident. She was assigned to the
Facility Association and had to pay three or four times what she would have had
to pay if she had applied as an accident-free driver.
We have to look at a number of things here, and I do not know if this
application can even look at that because it is suggested that is really in the
Automobile Insurance Act and that is not decided by this application; this is
only about rates. Mr. Speaker, if you cannot challenge who gets thrown into this
body or pool called high risk drivers, then there is something wrong with the
system and we have to examine that.
This application alone - and this is something, that you do not find out
these things until you actually apply for a copy of the application itself. The
application for Facility Association is applying for what they call an average
rate level, an average increase of 41.3 per cent for private passenger vehicles
and 48 per cent for commercial vehicles. We are taking about average increases
there: an average of 41 per cent increase for passenger and 48 per cent for
commercial. If you look at the application itself, in the detail, actually for
Territory 1, which I understand is the Avalon Peninsula, for Territory 1 they
are looking for a 60 per cent increase for private passenger liability
insurance, and for commercial they are looking for 59.2 per cent for Territory
1. In fact, for commercial for all Territories 1, 2 and 3, it is 59 per cent for
commercial vehicles. This is the overall liability case for all classes of
people who are in Facility Association.
MR. WALSH: How do you get there?
MR. HARRIS: The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island asked,
how do you get there? You get there by being considered high risk by the
insurance industry. I just mentioned an example of a nineteen-year-old girl who
was "involved in an accident" by being rear-ended by somebody else,
not her fault. She was driving her grandmother's car and all of a sudden when
she applies for insurance herself a year later she is told that she is high risk
because she is a young person who has been involved in an accident.
Now I ask you, from a commonsense point of view, is that young person, who
happened to be rear-ended, a high risk to the insurance industry? Is this person
at greater risk of having insurance? There is something very wrong with that
system if that is what we are faced with here. There does not seem to be any
sense if that kind of thing can happen.
We are talking about very significant rate increases being sought here. We
are also talking about an organization, which I understand from newspaper
reports, that Facility Association actually made a profit last year. This is
supposed to be cost recovery. We have high risk drivers. They have to be
insured. We do not want uninsured drivers on the highways. We have to be
insured. This is supposed to be cost neutral; you collect premiums and you pay
it out.
What happened last year was that they made $8 million. Is that $8 million
being used to offset the future costs of Facility Association? No, Mr. Speaker,
that was given to the insurance companies to put that in their pockets. Last
year they made $8 million and said they were supposed to make nothing. They put
that in their pockets, and they are coming back to the Public Utilities
Commission looking for rate increases of as much as 60 per cent in some cases,
but averaging 41 per cent of various parts of the coverage. Now I don't know,
that average must be some kind of accumulative average because there is one or
two where they were actually going down. They were actually seeking decreases in
some of them, but they are upping the deductibles. So there are a lot of things
going on. There is a complex application. Some of the coverages will be going
down, but the deductibles are going up from $100 to $500 in some cases, and from
$100 to $250 in others. So there are a lot of adjustments being made here, but
the overall effect of it is that for commercial coverage we are going up by 48
per cent; 48.3 per cent for commercial coverage and 41.3 per cent for private
passenger. Some of which, and I would submit, the more expensive - the public
liability side of it - are going up by 60 per cent or being sought to go up by
60 per cent in the case of private passenger liability in Territory 1, and by 59
per cent in all territories. In other words, every commercial driver in the
Province who is in Facility Association will be potentially facing an increase
of 60 per cent in public liability premiums.
What is also interesting, Mr. Speaker, is that the uninsured automobile
coverage is being proposed to go to $19 base premium in order to be consistent
with the New Brunswick universal uninsured automobile proposed base premium,
which is currently pending review. Now that is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. I
remember a number of years ago in this House when there were proposed changes to
the Insurance Act and we were told that there was a benefit to getting rid of
the uninsured motorists fund in this Province and that would be just done by the
insurance companies themselves. We would no longer have the separate
organization, which was looking after uninsured motorists and would settle the
claims for the uninsured motorists and had a fund to do that. We were told that
this would go into regular insurance coverage now. It would be covered by the
insurance company, and the premium would be $7 per driver; $7 per policy. Now we
are talking about $19. Even though when it was introduced in this House it was
talked about at $7 per driver, and this is supposed to be not a very significant
addition to the cost to drivers.
So this particular type of coverage for uninsured motorists came in at around
$10, went to $14 very quickly, and now we are looking at $19 for uninsured
motorists coverage. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a very great need to have at the
table, at the Public Utilities Board, somebody representing consumers here
because something is amiss when we see the Facility Association - which is
supposed to be totally revenue neutral, they just pay their expenses, they just
pay our their cost - collect $8 million one year and put it in their pockets
with the permission of the Public Utilities Commission, I would say. They did
not do it on their own. They did it with permission.
MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Government says it made the case against being allowed to do
it, but I do not see any proposal in the legislation here, Mr. Speaker, to make
it illegal for them to do it. If you made the