Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers; Petitions — 25 May 1999 (44th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLIV No. 29)
1999-05-25
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 25,
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIV No. 29
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we begin the routine proceedings for today, there are
a couple of things the Chair would like to do. I would first of all like to
welcome ten Journalist students from Lawrence College. They are accompanied by
the their instructor, Mr. William Callahan, also a former Member of the House of
Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: It is also my pleasure today to preside over
a ceremony which on three previous occasions had to be postponed because of
certain events that took place in this Chamber. In fact, I must apologize to the
former Sergeant-at-Arms in that we have not been able to honour him properly
before this time; however, he is here with us today.
As members who have served during previous General Assemblies
will remember, of course, he was our Sergeant-at-Arms from 1981 to 1997. For new
members of the Assembly, and for visitors to the gallery today, I would like to
take a few minutes to give you a little on the background of Mr. Kirby.
He was born in Lamaline on May 26, 1916, which means that
tomorrow he will be celebrating his 83rd birthday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: We certainly want to wish him many happy
returns of the day.
He is the son of the Reverend H. and Mrs. F. Kirby and was
educated in Lamaline, Port Rexton and Harbour Grace. The former Sergeant-at-Arms
enlisted with the First Volunteer Contingency Royal Artillery and sailed for
England on April 14, 1940. Like many of his peers, of course, he served us well
and indeed helped preserve many of the freedoms that we enjoy today in this
democracy, in this country, and indeed in this Parliament.
He served in the 166th Newfoundland Royal Artillery and
fought with the British in North Africa and in the Italian Campaign. He is
married to the former Thelma Marper of Sheffield, England. They have three
children, and it is my pleasure to welcome them here today. They are sitting in
the Speaker's gallery. I want to welcome Ms Thelma Kirby, son Philip, and Debra
and Pamela, his two daughters.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: As well I would like to recognize, sitting
in the public galleries today, commissionaires who worked with Mr. Kirby when he
was the Sergeant-at-Arms here: Mr. Doug Parmiter, Bill Tucker, Ladd Bursey, Bill
Mitchell and Ralph Clarke.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Kirby was involved in many community
activities, including the past Commanding Officer of the RCSCC Terra Nova .
He served on the executive council of Branch 56, the Royal Canadian Legion. He
started to serve in his position as Sergeant-at-Arms here in 1979 as an
understudy to the then Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Hemmons. He took over his full
responsibility in the fall of 1981, and was with us until 1997.
Mr. Kirby served us well during his years as
Sergeant-at-Arms. To recognize his service, and on behalf of all members, I ask
the present Sergeant-at-Arms to escort Mr. Kirby to unveil his portrait. We will
hang it next to the former Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Hemmons, on the wall in the
side corridor next to the Chamber.
I would like for the Sergeant-at-Arms now to escort Mr. Kirby
to the floor of the Chamber, and we will unveil the portrait.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
[Unveiling of portrait.]
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, it was with much sadness and
regret that we learned of the passing of Irene Catherine Woodford, wife of the
hon. Rick Woodford, Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
Irene Woodford died on Saturday, May 22nd following a
difficult and courageous battle with cancer. She was fifty years of age.
On behalf of all hon. members, I wish to extend our deepest
sympathy and condolences especially to Rick and his daughter, Tanya, and indeed
to all members, relatives and friends of the Woodford family. Our thoughts and
prayers are with all of them during this period of great sorrow.
Irene Woodford was a person who was loved, admired and
respected especially by those whose lives she touched during her teaching
profession. She will be sadly missed by all who had the good fortune and
privilege to know her. Today, Mr. Speaker, we mourn the loss of a truly great
person.
I wish to advise all hon. members that a Memorial Service
will be held for the late Irene Woodford at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday at the St.
George's Anglican Church at Cormack.
Mr. Speaker, out of respect for Irene Woodford, I understand
that arrangements are being made for members of both sides of the House to
attend this Memorial Service and have an opportunity to pay their personal
respects to the Woodford family.
With leave of the House, I would ask that the Clerk be
directed to send an appropriate letter of condolence to extend our sympathies to
the Woodford family.
Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of any other remarks
associated with this expression of sympathy, I would ask that all hon. members
stand for a minute and observe this moment of silence out of respect for the
memory for the late Irene Woodford.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I
on this side of the House would like to be associated with the remarks by the
Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Mr. Woodford, Minister of Works,
Services and Transportation, has a great many friends in all parts of the House.
I can only reiterate what you have said: that we, through the Speaker, through
the House of Assembly, pass on every member's personal regrets and sympathies to
Mr. Woodford and his daughter, Tanya. We look forward to seeing Mr. Woodford's
return to the House, and we will see he and his family and friends Thursday in
Cormack.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to join with the minister and the Leader of the
Opposition in acknowledging the great sadness that we all feel today at the loss
of a member's spouse.
As indicated, the minister has a great many friends in this
House, as well as his wife. My own spouse and I visited them at their home on
occasion and enjoyed their hospitality and company. It is especially poignant to
know that this has happened, and it is with great sadness that I join in this
moment and ask to share with others the sentiments of this House in a formal
condolence to the member and his family for their great loss.
MR. SPEAKER: I would ask all hon. members to rise.
[Members observe a moment of silence.]
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to tell everyone
today about two related initiatives to help low income families in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Earlier today, I announced the details of the Newfoundland
and Labrador Child Benefit, the Province's 1999 National Child Benefit
provincial reinvestment, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Family Benefit which
are both part of the redesign of the Department of Human Resources and
Employment's income support program.
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is dedicated to
developing and maintaining supports and programs that directly respond to the
serious issue of child poverty. Over the past year we have implemented a number
of initiatives that ensure children and families of the Province have access to
resources that will help provide a healthy and productive lifestyle. Initiatives
such as the Strategic Social Plan and other components of our income support
program have directly influenced the well-being of children and families within
the Province. The Newfoundland and Labrador Child and Family Benefits continue
the mandate set out by government and will significantly improve the lives of
approximately 42,000 children in the Province.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit ensures low
income families, whether on social assistance or not, receive ongoing support
for their children. The NLCB will be provided to all low income families with a
net income below $20,921 based on the previous tax year. Families are eligible
if they have at least one dependent child under the age of eighteen. The amount
of support provided by the benefit will correspond with the number of dependent
children in a family. The Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit will be
combined with the Canada Child Tax Benefit, in one monthly federal-provincial
payment, beginning in July.
This benefit is designed to provide benefits to various types
of families eligible for social assistance, including single parent families,
two parent families, and families without children. Beginning in August, the
redesigned Family Benefits, which consist of four new rates, will replace the
existing basic social assistance allowances. The Family Benefit will be based on
the number of adults within a family and their living arrangements. These
changes in social assistance allowances will not have an effect on other income
support components such as allowances for single persons, rent, mortgage and
drug cards.
Details of the specific rates under the Child and Family
Benefits have been provided to House members to review at their convenience.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Child and Family Benefits
directly respond to the needs and concerns of the children of families of
Newfoundland and Labrador. These new initiatives provide incentives to join or
rejoin the labour market while continuing to support families while they make
this transition.
I hope that members of the House will share my enthusiasm
over these programs and agree that these initiatives are a wonderful step
forward in supporting low income families and ensuring that our children grow up
in a safe and stable environment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a
copy of the statement. Any improvement in the lives of the children in this
Province, and indeed in the lives of the family in this Province, is welcome.
It is interesting to note that one year ago today the
minister stood in this House and announced that the National Child Tax Benefit
would not be clawed back from families who were on social assistance. I would
like to think that was because of the pressure that was put on by this side of
the House on more than one occasion when petitions were presented. I am glad to
see that this year the minister sees the benefit of that and the good it is in
fact doing for the families out there.
Any improvement, as I said, of this 3 per cent or 4 per cent
is certainly welcome, because 27 per cent of the children in Newfoundland live
in poverty, and in single parent families 72.1 per cent of children live in
poverty. That is by far leading the national average by a country mile.
I am really glad that there is some improvement. I have not
had a chance to go over the figures yet and see what the comparison is in the
new figures, but as I said before, any improvement in the lives of children and
families in the Province is welcome.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The readjustment of these rates and basically reorganizing
the deck chairs does not do a lot to improve the situation of what the minister
herself says. There are 42,000 children in this Province who live in families in
poverty, and therefore qualifying for the Child Benefit.
The situation here is that the institutions and structures
that create and maintain equality are not being changed at all. In fact, the
minister with her targeted program is not meeting the universal standard that is
required. For example, these individuals who are working and making up to
$18,000 to $20,000 are paying taxes. The minister is taking those taxes and
giving some of it back to them. Instead, the minister and her government should
be working towards reducing the amount of taxes that individuals at low incomes
have to pay.
I note that the single individual adult on social assistance
still receives a shocking and scandalous $129 per month maximum. Although the
minister is changing the names of some of these programs, readjusting the way
the benefits are calculated, we still have a shocking state of provision of
basic services for the people in need in this Province, including children and
families.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In March of this year, the Department of Mines and Energy
issued a call for proposals under the Mineral Act respecting the mineral rights
to 250 hectares at Deer Cove near the town of Ming's Bight on the Baie Verte
Peninsula. The 250 hectares covered a previously discovered deposit of talc as
well as a small gold deposit. The call for proposals was advertised
internationally with a deadline of May 15, 1999 for the receipt of proposals.
Today I am pleased to announce that we have accepted a
proposal from WMC International Ltd. for the further exploration and evaluation
of the talc and gold deposits at Deer Cove. WMC International Limited is a
Canadian subsidiary of the Australian-based corporation WMC Limited, one of the
world's largest resource companies and a significant producer of both gold and
talc. It is also the world's third largest nickel producer and has major
interests in copper, alumina, uranium, silver and fertilizer with total assets
valued at $9 billion Australian in 1998.
WMC has proposed a multi-phased approach to evaluating the
mineral deposits at Deer Cove with an initial focus on the talc potential of
this particular property. This will result in the expenditure of approximately
$300,000 and will lead to test mining and a pre-feasibility study for the
project. The initial work will begin this summer, and if successful will move to
the next phase quickly.
WMC currently owns 50 per cent of Europe's second largest
talc producer, Mondo Minerals Oy, and also operates a major talc mine in
Australia itself. We are confident that WMC has the technical and marketing
expertise to properly evaluate the true potential of the talc resources at Deer
Cove as well as the small gold deposit located adjacent to this talc deposit.
It gives me great pleasure to announce the awarding of the
mineral rights at Deer Cove to WMC International and to welcome WMC, one of the
world's largest mineral and metal producers, to its first project in
Newfoundland and Labrador. I wish WMC every success in this project, which, if
successful, could lead to another important mining development for our Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Indeed, it is good news that such a reputable company known
worldwide is going to have its first experience in this Province on the Baie
Verte Peninsula. It certainly has a great potential. Many geologists over the
years have said that it is one of the areas of the Province where we could see
some major mining resource developments over the next little while. This is the
type of activity we need. Because like Voisey's Bay, like anywhere else, we have
to have the investors and we have to have the people to come in to look for
these minerals. It only bodes well for the future of not only the Baie Verte
Peninsula but anywhere when a company of this stature comes into our Province.
I also noticed too that it also has a major interest in
copper, of which there have been some developments in the Baie Verte Peninsula,
and in Central Newfoundland, as of late. We hope that this type of activity will
continue and that indeed we will see this first phase proceed very quickly
throughout the summer. I say to the minister that even the amount for this
summer, that little bit of activity alone, certainly of course stirs people's
interests again. It certainly is an injection of good faith that we see in
mining in this Province again. Hopefully we will see something positive in the
near future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Also, I rise in support of the statement. I think it is good
news. This is a very large international corporation, the third largest producer
of not only nickel but of gold as well. This is a company that is operating in
nineteen countries around the world. They are also involved in - as it said in
the statement - uranium and the chemical industry. It is positive when a large
corporation with a reputation such as WMC decides to invest and pursue
opportunities in our Province. It has nothing but good news for us.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that in the latest
copy of Voisey's Bay News there are many other activities taking place in
the mining industry in the Province today, and hopefully they will have
significant payoffs for us as a province as well.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!
MR. NOEL: I hope you will get in the habit of that kind
of response when I speak in the House.
Mr. Speaker, as members know, hundreds of thousands of
Kosovars have been displaced by the tragic conflict in Serbia. The Government of
Canada has agreed to accept 5,000 Kosovo refugees under an emergency
humanitarian evacuation program. These people are granted refugee status on
arrival in our country and may remain permanently as landed immigrants. About
one hundred of the refugees are being allocated to our Province, consistent with
targets set under the national refugee resettlement program, and are expected to
arrive by mid-June. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is pleased to
assist the federal government in settling these people in Canada. Some may
remain with us permanently, others may eventually choose to return to their
homeland, or move to other parts of our country.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada has initiated a Joint
Assistance Sponsorship Program which will meet the needs of refugees through
partnerships between the federal government and private sponsorship groups.
Under this program, basic financial needs, including start-up costs and living
allowances, will be paid by the federal government, while sponsorship groups are
being asked to facilitate integration by providing orientation and emotional
support to the refugees. Sponsoring groups will therefore not be required to
make any financial commitment.
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador encourages
citizens in our Province to provide the refugees with the support they require.
with emotional support and orientation about life where they take up residence.
A number of local religious, service, and humanitarian groups already hold
Sponsorship Agreements with the federal government and have had successful
experience in resettling refugees. However, five or more individuals can form an
ad hoc group for the purpose of sponsorship, providing they first affiliate
themselves with an existing organization which holds a sponsorship agreement
with the federal government.
We urge people to seriously consider assisting in this
effort. Interested potential sponsors should contact local groups experienced in
refugee sponsorship and refugee serving organizations as soon as possible.
Further information may be obtained by calling the Kosovo Hotline at
1-888-410-0009, or the coordinator for our Province, Ms Marlene Power, at
754-4122.
While the formal sponsorships are requested from groups,
there are also many opportunities for individuals to help. Those able to do so
should promptly contact refugee service organizations which are looking for
volunteers to assist in integrating the refugees into our community.
Canadians, continuing our tradition of humanitarian
assistance, are opening our doors to these unfortunate people in their time of
great need. I know the people of our Province will generously and
enthusiastically share responsibility for easing the burdens of these refugees.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly join with the minister in urging people to get
involved in this humanitarian effort. The people here in Newfoundland and
Labrador have certainly played their part within the context of Canada in moving
forth and being able to provide assistance for the allocation of one hundred
refugees to this Province, and encourage groups; and through the various ones
that already have an affiliation with sponsorships there, I encourage people to
get involved. Because Newfoundland and Labrador has to do its part. It is an
emergency on a worldwide scale. I am sure the minister stands in need of us
playing our
part in this Province to assist in that process. We certainly
encourage that, and hopefully people in this Province will respond like they
always do on matters of humanitarian interest.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very pleased that the minister's first ministerial
statement in the House as Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs is on such an
issue of broad international significance, and underscores the humanitarian role
that Canada has played internationally for many years. I, too, wish to join in
encouraging individuals and particularly groups in this Province to get involved
in assisting with the refugees from Kosovar.
I know a number of groups in the Province have a lot of
experience, such as the Association for New Canadians and others, in helping to
integrate newcomers to Canada and to Newfoundland and Labrador who have come
here under extreme circumstances to integrate, to learn the language, and to
find the kind of emotional community support that they need. I hope and I know
that people will come forward in these circumstances to assist the refugees to
become citizens, if they wish, or to return to their homeland, if that is
possible, in the near future.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question today is for the Minister of Mines and Energy.
About a year ago, on March 8, 1998, there was a rather significant public press
conference held in Labrador with respect to a negotiated framework or an
understanding related to the possible development of the Lower Churchill. Since
that time, we have been promised a number of updates related to what was
included in that framework: financing; the diversion of both the Romaine and the
St-Jean Rivers; the possible development of Muskrat Falls, as well as Gull
Island; the possibility of a line from the Labrador portion of our Province to
the Island portion of our Province. Much of that was discussed at the time but
little information coming forth. Recently we have seen a confirmation of what
was included in that framework agreement with respect to winter availability,
which essentially will keep CF(L)Co solvent.
I would like to ask the minister today, with respect to the
transmission line to the Island portion of the Province: Based upon the public
comments made by the Premier at that time and subsequent to that time, are there
any negotiations still ongoing with the federal government vis--vis the
financing of an in-feed or a line specifically from the Labrador portion of the
Province to the Island portion of the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that issue is still being
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: You wonder why people are sceptical. One of
the most important public policy debates that is not taking place in the
Province today is with respect to the development of the Lower Churchill
agreement. Not only that, not only the development of Lower Churchill, but also
any form of redress on the Upper Churchill.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: If the Minister of Fisheries would like me
to ask him a question, when I am finished with the Minister of Mines and Energy
I will ask you a question and you can stand up and answer as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
minister: Could he provide any more detail in terms of discussions? How serious
are they? Is the federal government willing to look at the possibility of
financing this? What are the costs associated with it? We have heard costs
around the vicinity of $1.5 billion. Could the minister confirm that? Could he
provide any more detail to the people of the Province, through this Legislature,
on actually that aspect of the discussions between the federal government, the
provincial government, and the proposed partner, Hydro Quebec?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe the hon. member is getting a bit excited in making his
speeches and so on but there is no proposed partner, Hydro Quebec, with respect
to an in-feed from Labrador to the Island for purposes of electric power. That
is an initiative of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, hopefully with
Hydro Quebec or the Government of Quebec. There were a number of different
components to what was announced on March 9 of last year - not March 8 - and the
discussions have been proceeding.
With respect to redress, my understanding at least of what
was in the Blue Book during the election some few months ago now was that if the
members opposite were the government they were going to go to Ottawa and ask for
some money for the fact that there was no transmission line, no corridor,
through Quebec thirty years ago and there has not been one for that whole period
of time. That was their plan.
We have decided not to do that. We have addressed the issue
directly with Hydro Quebec and the Quebec government, and we have already
indicated that on two fronts, with respect to the recall of power, we achieved
$30 million in the year just past that otherwise would not have been available
to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Over the life of the contract, that
will improve the value of the existing contract for Newfoundland and Labrador by
in excess of $1 billion over the life of the existing contract.
Also, with the winter availability that the Leader of the
Opposition mentioned, over the life of the contract that would improve matters
in Newfoundland and Labrador by a $1.5 billion.
Already, in two discussions that we have had with Hydro
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by $2.5 billion, somewhat of a significant
improvement.
The transmission issue, the in-feed to the Island, is a
matter solely to be done by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, hopefully with some assistance from the
discussions.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: The minister danced around the question. I
will ask him more directly. My information has told me that the Government of
Canada are not willing to participate in an in-feed to the Island. Can the
minister confirm that, please, or deny it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have no idea who his sources are. I can tell you that we
have a full negotiating team functioning on behalf of the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador with respect to the Labrador Hydro project, all aspects of it,
including the in-feed to the island. All of the options are still being
examined.
We are hoping to be at a point some time in the
not-too-distant future where we can come forward in a very public fashion and
explain fully to everybody in the Province what has transpired in the last year
or so, aside from the fact that without starting anything with respect to new
developments in Labrador we have already negotiated $2.5 billion worth of
improvements in one year. That is substantial and significant progress.
If we can get the other pieces to fall together as well as we
have managed to negotiate those two pieces that have contributed $2.5 billion of
new value to Newfoundland and Labrador in the next few months, we will be only
too glad to explain the whole case scenario to the people of the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, last year - about this time,
actually - in this Legislature we discussed the financing arrangements with
respect to the possible development or eventual development depending on a
successful conclusion to the negotiations that are ongoing, because all we have
right now is a Memorandum of Understanding or a framework. The successful
conclusion of that has not yet taken place.
Can the minister update the House in terms of the financing
component, in view of the fact that it is apparent that the diversion of the
St-Jean River is now off, or is in jeopardy in terms of bringing extra capacity
into the Smallwood reservoir, which would flow down through the Lower Churchill?
In view of that fact, has that impacted upon the approximately $900 million of
borrowing that must take place though CE(L)Co and also through the Province in
some form or another?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The general nature of it has not changed at all from last
year. The whole proposition that was put forward to the people of the Province
by the Premier, and also concurred in with Premier Bouchard at the time, was
that any new developments in Labrador that are being discussed will finance
themselves over the thirty-year life that will be expected to pay for all of the
construction costs, whether that construction includes one or two diversions, an
Upper Churchill reconfiguration, a Lower Churchill, Muskrat Falls, an in-feed,
any or all of those components.
Whichever components are finally agreed upon and announced
will finance themselves and pay for all of the borrowing that is done by
ourselves and the Province of Quebec over a thirty-year period and will generate
significant profit and returns to the people of the Province forever; otherwise
there will not be an arrangement entered into.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, everybody knows the general
nature has not changed. What I am after are some of the specific nature, the
specifics related to the deal.
My understanding is that the Province, on about $300 million,
with respect to the diversions into the Upper Churchill, with respect to the new
generators required to handle the increased capacity, then on the new
arrangement on the Lower Churchill, on Gull Island specifically, that the new
partnership owned two-thirds - or proposed owned two-thirds by the Province,
one-third by Hydro Quebec - that we will have to borrow; in other words, that
the Province will have to guarantee in some way, shape or form in excess of $500
million to $600 million. I know that bond rating agencies and money markets have
met with the Department of Mines and Energy, Department of Finance, et cetera.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?
MR. E. BYRNE: I know a lot more than you do, Minister.
That is all I will say to you right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: The question is this. Are you in a position
today to elaborate fully on exactly what we will be exposed on, what we have to
borrow, and what the Province will have to guarantee with respect to the Lower
Churchill?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, other than to give this
assurance. The sale of the new electric energy generated by the project that we
will at some point, hopefully, agree to build in Labrador, the sale of the
energy will finance of and by itself any borrowing the Province has to incur.
There will be no risk to the Province outside of that for other kinds of
borrowing that we would have to do to maintain programs and functions of the
government generally in services.
This is a business proposition. There will be enough new
electric energy generated in Labrador that the sale of that energy alone will
justify, merit and warrant the construction of the new facilities and will pay
for every bit of it of and by itself without any further jeopardy to the normal
borrowing of the Province, in terms of taking care of the services that people
have come to expect on an annual basis from their government.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If the minister can stand in this House today and
emphatically say that the sale of the new energy will more than finance it, then
he must know what the financing costs are going to be.
I will ask the minister my question again. He has just
indicated that the sale of energy will more than cover the cost so the Province
will not be left exposed, but he did not answer the question. I have two
questions. One, what will we have to guarantee as a province? Two, if he can
stand in this House today and say that the sale of energy will more than cover
the cost, then, Minister, release the financing cost. You must know it if you
can stand in the House and emphatically say that today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not understand. I have admitted before being very stupid
at times, and this is maybe one of them. I do not even understand why the
question would be raised, or the concern that the Leader of the Opposition is
trying to get at.
If there was a proposition being put forward where the normal
borrowing capacity of the Province to sustain programs and services in health
care, education, transportation, communication, that people have become to rely
on, and if that was in some way going to be jeopardized by additional borrowing
to build a hydro project, I could understand some concern. Ever since March 9 of
last year it has been clear to everybody who has read any of the documentation,
without any specific numbers, that this project will only proceed between the
partners - being Hydro-Quebec for the parts that are shared, Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on behalf of the government and the Government
of Canada for the in feed - if they pay for themselves, based upon the new
energy generated and transmitted.
There is no issue in terms of a concern for financing. So the
number in that context is absolutely irrelevant, because if it is $1 and it is
all covered by a sale, or if it is $1 billion and it is all covered by a sale,
it does not matter in terms of the fiscal capability of the Province to raise
the money, or the ability of the Province to run all the other programs and
services that are expected of it.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: If the minister has not gotten the drift of
the question, it is simply this. We could be in this Legislature today and for
the past three weeks debating the merits and demerits of a concrete proposal.
Government has said on at least three occasions that they would provide updates
to the people of the Province and to the House.
In terms of financing costs, Minister, people in this
Province have no other choice but to either adopt and endorse your `trust me'
approach. That is what we are talking about, because that is what you are asking
people to do: trust me, trust this government. That is the issue. I will leave
that up to the people of the Province to decide.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!.
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to
his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: I am not going to speculate one way or
another on what they want to do, if they trust you or not. I will say this. As
Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of the people of the Province -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: - I'm not going to trust the government
until I see what is in the proposal. That is what we are asking for today. That
is all we are asking for.
Final question, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: It is called doing your job, Minister.
Maybe you can take a lesson from it.
Mr. Speaker, this is a final question to the Minister of
Mines and Energy. We have seen publicly that there is a problem with respect to
Aboriginal concerns on the Quebec side of the border with respect to the
diversion of the St-Jean River. Are there any other parts of that framework
agreement that are not as they were announced on March 9, 1998, that have
changed a year later? Could you inform the House if there are any other changes,
fundamentally, to the principles on which that framework was announced and sold?
Could you tell us today?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If there are to be changes, and some have been openly
speculated about by ourselves as the government, there may be a single diversion
instead of two diversions. That is not yet finally decided. There may or may not
be a re-configuration at the current Churchill Falls plant to install new
turbines. The other option being explored is whether or not we just take the
current plant and operate it at a higher rate of capacity.
Those issues, none of them have been finally determined
between the partners who are looking to build this project: basically the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Quebec, except for
the in feed which is the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the
announced a year ago in March, they will be announced when they are decided.
There have been no changes decided upon. There are a number of examinations
occurring.
With respect to whether or not people should have some
confidence that things are going fairly well to date, there have been two
accomplishments that I will remind people of again. As a part of this discussion
and negotiation we have achieved an extra $1 billion over the life of the
current Upper Churchill contract for the people of the Province through the
recall provision, and through the Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract we
have achieved an additional $1.5 billion that will benefit the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador that otherwise would not have existed.
Even before we get down to the details of exactly what we
will build, how many rivers will be diverted, whether it will be transmitted to
the Island or not, we have already enhanced a lot of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians by $2.5 billion. I would expect there is some reason for the people
of the Province to have some comfort and confidence that so far this negotiation
is going fairly well.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Health and
Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: This past year the Newfoundland and
Labrador Medical Association signed a MOU with this government that acknowledges
that the NLMA is the sole and exclusive negotiator for physicians in this
Province.
Government, however, has unilaterally implemented a block
funding arrangement for St. John's emergency room physicians. The NLMA, in a
letter last Thursday to their membership, stated that they were only advised of
this by receiving a copy of the letter that went from your department to the
Health Care Corporation of St. John's. The president in that letter stated he
believes that this unilateral action will have serious repercussions and create
further instability in the health care system.
I want to ask the minister this. Minister, why did you
violate the very MOU that you signed just a few months ago?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Whenever you have any sort of an arrangement when not all
parties can agree, there is a process put in place that allows one party or
another to go through that process to find resolution. When all three parties -
and there are three parties involved - in particular -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, when all three parties
involved, including the Health Care Association, my department, and the NLMA,
cannot come to an agreement - on this particular case, where the money is coming
from - then we refer to a process whereby the outcome is decided by that
process. It is no different than any other appeal process. That is what will
happen in this case.
With respect to it being an issue made only known over the
last number of days, that issue that we presented has been known for a number of
weeks as the process has been worked through. As pointed out, because not
unanimous agreement was reached the process then follows whereby it goes to an
independent person to identify the outcome.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last year, when I asked about provision of doctors pulling
service out of nursing homes you indicated it has to go through the Medical
Association. It had to be negotiated. Now you are taking a different stand, I
say to the minister.
The NLMA stated in their letter that they have written you
condemning this unilateral action and they are calling for a return to the
bargaining table. The NLMA, in the president's letter, says: this will increase
the cost of providing emergency room services and government has not
acknowledged the obligation to fund these costs.
There was not enough money there in the beginning Minister,
and they go on to say that -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to
his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: - to reach parity with Atlantic Canada -
and the NLMA board has consistently stated that progress in one area could not
be achieved by taking money from another.
I want to ask the minister if she will tell the House if that
is the case or is there new money being provided, for example through the
Contingency Reserve Fund, as is happening with the hiring of new nurses in the
Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is good to hear the member opposite identify the new money
made available for the hiring of new nurses but particularly -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
specific question in terms of money available, the money identified has been
identified through existing block funds. That is the issue under dispute that is
going forward to have a decision made on whether or not the money is there by
the part of the process outlined in the MOU.
There are three parties involved with this particular case.
My department has identified block funding by which this money can be achieved.
Mr. Speaker, not all parties are in agreement, so that will be sent to an
independent process to identify if in fact that is the outcome.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is exactly what the Medical Association feared, it is
rob Peter to pay Paul. Minister, you know it is difficult to attract emergency
room doctors in rural parts of this Province. There are several areas of this
Province now that cannot recruit. There are locums coming in, in Gander and
Corner Brook. There is not one full time emergency room doctor in Clarenville,
for example. How do you expect to solve the shortage in rural Newfoundland,
particularly in emergency departments - not to say here in the city alone - when
you are paying doctors $17 an hour less to do service in rural Newfoundland
emergency departments than you are doing here in the city? You reached that
unilaterally, I might say to the minister. Why the discrimination between rural
and urban Newfoundland?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is very important, for the record, to clarify that
this is not robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is not taking money out of rural
Newfoundland and putting it in urban Newfoundland. It is important, because many
days in this House there is so much misinformation and it is important to set
the record straight, that there is no reallocation of money from rural
Newfoundland into urban Newfoundland. This is an amount of money that has been
identified from existing block funds. Let me also say that we have been working
with groups of physicians, individually and collectively, about putting together
all kinds of new payment schemes and new approaches to alternate payment, and
the invitation stands.
I think for the information of the House it is important to
note as well that we have a new arrangement about to start in Bonavista, as well
as in the Clarenville area, with a new alternative pay schedule, this very
arrangement that we are talking about here. I am glad to hear that the member
opposite is happy that the urban issue has been resolved. As well, we are also
working again with another proposal around the Springdale area to also address
issues around money, around how physicians are paid. We are open to any of
those.
So again, I say, Mr. Speaker, trying to link what is
happening here with other issues again is one more example, I believe, of trying
to instil fear in people when we are open to all kinds of new arrangements and
funding arrangements.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Any party is entitled to make their view
clear. Obviously the view of the NLMA is that they would like to see new money
but, Mr. Speaker, we just reached a $32 million agreement by which we believe -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer quickly.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: - that there is existing monies
available to pay for this new arrangement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Environment and Labour
regarding the former Argentia naval base and the clean up currently being
conducted at that site.
I would like to ask the minister where the contaminated
materials from that site are going. Who, if anybody, conducts testing on the
materials that are removed? How often are those tests done?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and
Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my understanding that the federal government is in the
process of preparing a site to look after the contaminated material that is in
the Argentia area.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.
John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
They are preparing a site, but does the Province conduct any
auditing of the materials that have been taken from that site to date, for
example contaminated liquids, to ensure that what is removed is accounted for?
Can the Province account for the quantity of material removed? Can they account
for what happens to the material once it is removed from that site?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and
Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have the inspectors from the department that monitored the
site at Argentia regularly. I cannot tell you all the details here now, but when
I go back to the department I will get it and give it to the hon. member
tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.
John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Are
there any contaminated materials such as oil or oily water being dumped at the
Robin Hood Bay site? Can the minister give us a breakdown of the amounts that
are being dumped, the hydrocarbon content, and who is doing the dumping at that
site? Table the findings.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and
Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I suggested to the person earlier, I want to check with
the inspectors when I go back this afternoon. Tomorrow I will give a briefing to
the member opposite as to what is happening in the Argentia site.
The inspectors are there regularly. In fact, I have had some
of the contractors tell me that the inspectors have spent more time in Argentia
than elsewhere. I will check it out and find out.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Minister, less than one month ago you stood and read a prepared ministerial
statement stating how happy you were that after a long, hard lobby with the
federal government, your cousins, that finally S.C.B. Fisheries would now be
allowed to import all female diploid steelhead trout, which are more
commercially viable. You went on to say how this was good news for S.C.B.
Fisheries and other aquatic operations in Bay d'Espoir.
I ask the minister if this is now a done deal. Are there any
problems with S.C.B. Fisheries importing this strain of fish in the numbers they
require?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: There is no change, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for
Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, it is my understanding that this struggling
operation may have to wait another twelve months before they are allowed to
import the quality of diploid fish that they now need. In fact, Minister, the
20,000 eggs that were imported have now reached the stage that they should be in
ocean cages, but remain at Jeddore Lake because of your department not being
prepared to allow the transfer to happen. I ask the minister if this is his way
of helping this particular industry to succeed.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: None of that is correct, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for
Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, this is not what I am
hearing, I say to the minister.
Minister, it is also my understanding that the problem of
importing the diploid strain of steelhead trout into this Province now lies with
your department and not the federal government.
Will the minister admit here today that the decision to delay
the importing of female diploid fish is due to his department's decision to now
do an environmental study, which shows that his very own department was not even
ready for the very thing that he was lobbying the federal department to accept?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, there is no delay in bringing in
the diploid fish. Here is what happens, for the hon. member does not know, and
if he would search out the answers instead of listening to the news media and
drawing his questions from that, he would know more about it.
First of all, you have to import the eggs. Then you put the
eggs into the hatchery. Then they grow into what we call smolts. Then you take
that and you put them into the lake. Then they grow into steelhead trout. Then
we ship them out of the Province. Before we do that, before that can be done, it
has to go through an environmental process. Until you bring in the eggs you
cannot go through the environmental process.
There is no delay. Everything is on
schedule and will be on
schedule. What was talked over on CBC radio this morning is not correct. There
is absolutely no delay. It stated that Minister Anderson had delayed it for
another year? That is wrong.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for
Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that
if that information is wrong, and the minister stands here and continually says
the dollars that are put into this operation are for research and development -
there were 20,000 diploid eggs and 20,000 triploid eggs put in Jeddore Lake. The
triploids are now in ocean cages, the diploids sit in Jeddore Lake,
whereas the
minister will not give permission for them to transfer from freshwater
surroundings into salt water surroundings. Why?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are not going
to go repeating the mistakes that were made in S.C.B. Fisheries in the past. We
have come through a total review of S.C.B. Fisheries. There were some mistakes
made, and that was the reason why it is not up to a financial situation today
where it can make some profits.
Now it is easy enough to say: Let's take the diploid fish out
of Jeddore Lake, put them in the ocean, and then we will probably bring a
disease into the ocean and destroy all the fish that are there. Until we are
absolutely sure where the proper place is to put them, the diploid fish will not
be moved until we go through the environmental process and we are satisfied.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the money that was put
in last year, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the operation of S.C.B.
Fisheries in the future. Bringing in a new strain of fish will enhance the
ability of S.C.B. Fisheries to be successful in the future, but to jump and do
it without going through the proper procedures would be repeating the mistakes
of the past. I am not going to do that.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on
tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Internal
Economy Commission Act," Bill 19.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on
tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Provide An
Accountability Framework For Public Bodies," Bill 20.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour
Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the
following private member's resolution:
WHEREAS parents, students, teachers, administrators, school
board members, school councils and others throughout the Province had for many
weeks been demonstrating their deep concern over the impact of the proposed
reduction in 1999-2000 of 182 teaching positions will have on the quality of
education available to students in their areas;
AND
WHEREAS the Minister of Education has challenged the
Opposition and the people of the Province generally to show the government the
impacts the pending teacher cuts will have on schools, programs and students;
AND
WHEREAS the Minister of Education and her colleagues in
Cabinet have dismissed the concerns of parents, students, teachers and officials
that have been reported to the House of Assembly by the Opposition caucus
committee on education, but the ministers has provided no similar means for the
public to express to government in an open forum their concerns about the
impacts of teacher cuts on their schools;
AND
WHEREAS the continuing protests and demonstrations
throughout the Province indicate public concerns have not been diminished by the
minister's approach to the situation;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the
Minister of Education and her colleagues in Cabinet to immediately appoint a
task force chaired by an independent non-partisan commissioner to hold public
hearings throughout the Province to order to give parents, students, teachers,
administrators, school board members, school councils and others a public forum
in which they can express to government their information and concerns about the
impact on schools, programs and students of the proposed reduction in teaching
positions and where people can also discuss generally the kind of education
system they want for their children.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could have the attention of
the Opposition House Leader. There is standard motion there which just says that
the Public Accounts Committee be authorized to consider and report upon evidence
taken by the Committee during the Third Session of the Forty-Third General
Assembly. I wonder if I could ask leave to give notice of that now and still
move it?
Mr. Speaker, I would move that the Public Accounts Committee
be authorized to consider and report upon evidence taken by the Committee during
the Third Session of the Forty-Third General Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, `aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.
Motion carried.
Answers to Questions
For which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member for Cape St. Francis asked five specific
questions in the House on Friday with respect to the move of the Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing Maintenance Division from Hallett Crescent and from Mount
Pearl to one new location on Blackmarsh Road.
While the information that I provided him in the House was of
a general nature, I undertook to give him some specific details or to report to
the House on specific details of the leases that have been put in place; the
cost associated with the new facility that we are going into; the basis upon
which acquisitions were made for goods and services, labour and materials, that
sort of thing; and what the projected savings would be, given a ten-year time
frame and assuming renewal of a five-year option for a second five-year period.
Mr. Speaker, I am tabling in the House today, for the
information of the hon. member and for the information of the House, specific
answers in some detail to all of these questions. I hope they will be
satisfactory to the member.
If he has additional questions with respect to this
particular issue then I would be happy to entertain them and provide for him the
information in the House in as timely a fashion as I can, if indeed we cannot
provide it immediately during the Question Period exercise.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to respond to a question asked by the hon.
Member for St. John's West last week. It was in reference to Executive Council
Estimates and pertained to 2.8.01, Women's Policy. The question was about the
budget for $317,500 in the Salaries section, 01, revised to $348,000. The answer
to that question is that it reflects the removal of the funding for the
twenty-seventh pay period provided in 1998-1999.
I might also add that under Professional Services, 05, that
budget was forecast to be $82,600 but only $40,000 was spent, which means that
$40,000 of that - or less than that - was moved up to Salaries, which reflects
the transfer of Professional Services funding into Salaries for a contractual
employee. I might also note that the Professional Services projected was less
than budgeted for the same reason.
Under the heading 2.8.02, Provincial Advisory Council on the
Status of Women,
section 10, Grants and Subsidies, there was a question as to
the amount there: $203,800 and reduced to $201,200 for this coming year. The
reason for that is that it reflects the removal of funding for the
twenty-seventh pay period for council staff provided in the 1998-1999 budget.
Thank you.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition. The petition reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland
in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland;
WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been
upgraded since it was paved approximately twenty-five years ago; and
WHEREAS this
section of Route 235 is in such a terrible
condition that vehicles are being damaged, including school buses serving
schools in the area, and school children are finding their daily trips over the
road very difficult;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the five kilometres of Route 235
from Birchy Cove to Bonavista.
As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is another petition brought forward by the
residents of the Port Union, Bonavista, Birchy Cove, Newmans Cove, Upper,
Middle, Lower Amherst Cove area, again putting a plea to government to ask them
if they would look at this particular
section of roadway that the residents of
those five communities travel over every day of the week.
We have had petitions presented here, signed by
schoolchildren. We have had petitions signed by parents. We have had petitions
signed by people who do not even live in the area but have seen the condition of
this particular strip of road and have said: By God, we are going to do our part
and send a letter to the minister as well.
I understand the minister's office is getting faxes and
letters. In fact, over 600 letters have been sent to the Acting Minister of
Works, Services and Transportation. I understand the minister's deputy, in turn,
is sending them probably on to Clarenville where the superintendent of that
particular district has been receiving them and has answered some of them, so he
takes it very seriously.
In conversion with Mr. Goodman, who is the area
superintendent there, or the administrator of the eastern area, the
Clarenville-Bonavista area - if somebody took the time to write and have a chat
with Mr. Goodman, I think he would be very quick off the mark if you asked him
the question of where is the worst
section of road in the district that he
serves. He would certainly tell you that the worst
section of road is between
Birchy Cove and Bonavista. The
section of roadway which he gets the most
complaints from, or the area under his jurisdiction where he gets the most
complaints from, would certainly be from the Birchy Cove, Upper, Middle, Lower
Amherst Cove, Newmans Cove area.
Those people, the residents in this particular area, have
written the minister. They have been calling the minister's office, they have
been holding public meetings, and they have been calling me. What they are
asking for is to have this particular
section of Route 235 upgraded and paved.
They have identified 2.5 kilometres of the five kilometre stretch between
Bonavista and Birchy Cove. They have said: Look, even if we could get that 2.5
kilometres upgraded and paved, that would satisfy our immediate need.
It is not the point of, we want a super highway. All we are
asking for is a decent highway that we can drive over safely, so the children
can get aboard the school bus and travel to and from school safely, so that we
can go to Bonavista and access our health care facility there, access the only
doctors in the area, and access the only government buildings in the area,
Bonavista being the service centre of the whole area in that particular part of
the Bonavista Peninsula.
The plea has been coming through here, through me. They have
been using my voice in the House of Assembly to bring forward their concerns to
the decision-makers in this Province, and hopefully this year - even though I
understand the capital works budget has already pretty well been precluded - the
Department of Works, Services and Transportation might be able to find funding
in their maintenance budget to at least look after the worst
section of this
particular roadway.
As the petition states, this particular
section of highway
was built over twenty-five years ago. It has continued to deteriorate. The
situation now is that we are doing patches on top of the patches. The sides of
the road, the shoulders of the road, have all fallen away. A lot of the times
you are driving along and in order to get away from a hole existing in the
pavement you have to go out on the shoulder of the road, and that in turn offers
more potential to have an accident.
When this particular
section of road was built, the standards
were certainly not as high as they are today. Even back in those days, I am not
so sure if anybody realized -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: - that this particular
section of road
would have to last twenty-five years or would have to contend with the amount of
traffic and, I suppose, the type of traffic that travels it every day.
It is a plea to the House once again to have this particular
section of roadway upgraded and paved.
Thank you.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would move first reading - and I
will do those, if I can, all in one bunch - of Motions 4, 8 and 10. They are:
"An Act to Amend The Income Tax Act". (Bill 6);
"An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act". (Bill 16);
"An Act To Amend The Jury Act". (Bill 17)
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill,
"An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act", carried. (Bill 6)
On motion, Bill 6 read a first time, ordered read a second
time on tomorrow.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and
Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend the Public Tender Act",
carried. (Bill 16)
On motion, Bill 16 read a first time, ordered read a second
time on tomorrow.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill,
"An Act To Amend the Jury Act", carried. (Bill 17)
On motion, Bill 17 read a first time, ordered read a second
time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before moving on to introducing
further Orders of the Day, I think it is appropriate for us to announce that the
House will sit on Thursday morning starting at 9:00 a.m. and go to 12:00 noon.
That is so we can make arrangements for hon. members to attend the funeral of
the late Irene Woodford in the afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I call Order 5, Bill 10, "An Act To Amend the
Denturists Act".
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend Denturists
Act". (Bill 10)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a bill that was on the Order Paper last session and
is back again this session. It is a bill in agreement by both the dentists and
the denturists which would allow basically denturists to do partial dentures as
opposed to - many of them are doing it now - the practice of doing it, but this
would allow them the legislative ability to do it for legal purposes as well as
for liability purposes.
Again, this is something that has been worked through with
both parties, the denturists as well as the dentists. Again the definition
speaks very clearly to it, that it is a removable, fabricated substitute and is
not anything to do with fixed appliances whatsoever.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Official Opposition do not have a problem with allowing
denturists, under the Denturists Act, to make partial dentures. I am sure it
only allows them to be able to perform commensurate with the basic skills they
have, and hopefully give the public access so there is not a larger bite come
out of the pockets of consumers and so on. It gives the opportunity to
denturists as well as dentists.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, at least they can get their teeth into
it. It is something that does not - certainly, if anything, it enhances the
competitive aspect basically to allow this particular partial denture to be
made. I do not see any negative, adverse effects to the public or to the people
involved and affected directly by this particular act.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to express my support and the support of the NDP for
this amendment. I know it has been a matter of some controversy when the
Denturists Act first came in, that denturists were only given the right under
the legislation to manufacture full dental plates.
Of course, the technology of dental work and the provision of
dentures is such that there are lots of other ways of meeting the needs of a
patient without the provision of a full plate.
This is something that seemed to me at the time to be an
unnecessary restriction on denturists. The same technology, the same
methodology, seemed to be in use to produce the partial plate as well as a full
plate, at least in certain circumstances. I am not fully familiar with all of
the techniques and technology required, but it certainly seems to me that this
is a forward step for the denturists to permit them, within their level of
expertise, to provide dentures of a partial plate nature as well as a full
dental plate.
It seems to me that this is something that can be supported
by all members of the House. The fact that we have not heard any complaints from
anybody else about it is obviously an indication that this is legislation whose
time has come and we wish to offer our support as well.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and
Community Services. If she speaks now she will close the debate.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move second reading of Bill 10, "An Act To Amend The
Denturists Act".
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Denturists Act" read
a second time, order referred to Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill
10)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before calling the next order of
business, I would like to move that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do
not adjourn at 5:00.
All those in favour, `aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.
Motion carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 6.
AN HON. MEMBER: We will close at 4:00 p.m. if you are
going to talk, Harvey.
MR. TULK: Well that is entirely up to the Opposition,
what time we close. They usually keep us here until about 11:00 or 12:00 at
night.
"An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act". (Bill 11)
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The
Tobacco Control Act". (Bill 11)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This bill again is "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act".
It is one whereby more onus and responsibility will be placed on those who sell
cigarettes, particularly to minors, in such manner that those who sell to
persons under the age of nineteen would have increasing fines laid upon them,
with the eventual loss of their licence to sell tobacco.
Each of those in the process of selling would have to obtain
a licence without any charge, and that licence again would be allowed to be held
as long as the holder of the licence sold cigarettes to those who were over the
age of nineteen.
Again, we see this as the beginning of an ongoing campaign,
one whereby we have committed a significant amount of money in conjunction with
many other groups to begin to very much target and monitor sales of tobacco and
also target younger people specifically.
The fines are set out in this piece of legislation. As well,
it is very clear the age limit, being age nineteen, and that the onus again of
responsibility is placed on the vendor/seller of cigarettes to minors.
This piece of legislation is one again that we have been
working on for a period of time and have been very much consulting with the
various stakeholders including the Canadian Cancer Society, Newfoundland Heart
and Lung, physicians' groups, the Newfoundland respiratory group -
AN HON. MEMBER: Tobacco companies?
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, not tobacco companies.
It is interesting to note, though, that the day before we did
introduce this into the House of Assembly, a representative group of tobacco
companies conducted a public relations campaign, in my very own district I might
add, to allocate a very small portion of money again to enhance the whole issue
of tobacco sales. Even though to a government like ours the amount might be
significant, to those in the tobacco industry it was a very minor contribution.
When you compare the revenue they receive from young people starting to smoke,
particularly when we know that cigarette smoking is more addictive than heroin.
We see that in the increasing numbers, particulary of youth, who have begun to
smoke across this country, but more specifically in our own Province. Every two
years we have a survey which indicates that we are seeing an increase in the
number of young people smoking, particulary young women.
We are very pleased to move forward with this piece of
legislation. We know that very soon to follow we will have another piece of
legislation that we believe will go hand in hand with this one, allowing a more
firm approach so that governments may sue tobacco companies for the damages done
to a person's health.
Again, all of the information is contained in the bill, and I
would be only to happy to answer any questions. We do know that this piece of
legislation has the support of the community at large, all of the various
advocacy groups, and those that have been working for years to try to address
the hazards of smoking so that it can be prevented before it has to be cured.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly stand in support of this particular bill. We are
all aware that it is a major growing concern today with increasing smoking among
particularly young people, and young people getting access. Anything that would
limit access has to help the problem. It may not solve it completely, but it has
to help it and reduce the incident rates.
It is a concern here when people nineteen and over are out
purchasing cigarettes. I know you can go into schools today and pay so much and
get a cigarette. People sell them and peddle them around schools. Some of them,
I guess, could be nineteen years of age at schools today, it is not uncommon.
That is a major concern too.
I say to the minister that it is positive to take action on
people who are selling these, to limit access to young people. We also have to
be cognizant of people who are buying them for others, the same as they buy
alcohol and give it to young people. That is a serious offense. I know there is
provision, I guess, under the law on cigarettes, I would think, under some other
aspect of legislation. I am sure my legal colleagues might be aware of that, but
anybody who gives beer to minors can be charged with an offense. I was just
wondering, with reference to tobacco, if someone buys cigarettes and gives
cigarettes to them, is there anything in our laws that would -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not aware of it.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is right. I am not aware of that.
The minister confirms that and my colleague too, the legal profession. That is a
concern too, to have people out there today - a nineteen-, twenty- and
twenty-one-year-old - buying cigarettes and selling them or giving them to
younger people too. It is a major problem and concern.
I encourage the minister to have an aggressive anti-smoking
campaign and accelerate this particular program within our school systems. It is
important. People get the impression at an early age when they see people
smoking on t.v. and figure it is the cool thing to do. Cigarette manufacturers,
while they are out certainly supporting certain aspects of limiting that, are
also today becoming increasingly more involved in the production of movies.
Private companies out producing movies today, major motion screen pictures
today, financing for these has to come through the basic company that is
producing it. To take money from cigarette manufacturers and tobacco companies,
to have the person driving a car and smoking a cigarette, that is creating
impressions on people that it is the fashionable thing to do, it is in vogue, it
is cool to do that. That is a back door supporting of smoking.
Those type of things, too, we need to have tough legislation
on. I know a lot of these major movie productions emanate in the United States,
but some are in Canada also. We have to be cognizant of that because you can
never take too strong an action, I suppose, to discourage or to hinder access to
cigarette smoking. Because it is costing untold dollars on our health care
system today. It is probably the largest contributor, I think, today to health,
circulatory diseases - in particular heart -, and respiratory problems
associated with smoking, not to mention cancer itself. Many people think smoking
and cancer are the main - but it is not the main effect, cancer from smoking.
The main problems are heart and circulatory in nature.
So I certainly support the legislation here. I am sure there
is an ample period - that it will come into effect September 1, 1999, that all
people will give at least three months' notice, sent out in the regular manner,
to all people that are licensed. Because you have to be licensed now and there
is no fee for it, thank God. There is not another tax on this one. At least they
have to register and they will get their appropriate notice and appropriate
warnings. If they did not follow the proper procedures to be able to identify
people who purchase cigarettes - and these little notes from parents and notes
from other people to give my little Johnny or Mary, twelve- or thirteen-years
old, cigarettes to bring home. Those types of things have to be avoided because
they are not always authentic, those little notes that people get in stores.
So anything that would discourage people from smoking and
prevent people from getting access to it, we support, and we support this
particular piece of legislation.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to speak at second reading on the amendment to the
Tobacco Control Act. I believe that these amendments are certainly helpful in
the attempt to decrease the number of young people with access to tobacco.
I note that a number of years ago when the Tobacco Control
Act was brought in and the age was raised to age nineteen for the procurement of
tobacco, and at the same time the prohibition of selling loose cigarettes was
introduced or strengthened, there were hearings held in this House and a
legislative committee - which was active in those days; they appear to be
totally inactive now - actually held hearings and heard evidence from people
involved in the control of tobacco who had serious concerns about the approaches
being taken by the tobacco companies in their efforts to recruit new smokers,
particularly young people, and how they worked both nationally and
internationally.
It is astounding that these companies who produce these
products are increasing their market around the world. I read something the
other day - I'm not sure I can get the exact quote - but it appears that what is
happening throughout the world is that the number of deaths related to
communicable diseases is going down, and the number of deaths related to issues
such as tobacco and other... I hesitate to call them lifestyle issues, but the
number of deaths related to preventable types of diseases that come from things
like tobacco are going up, to the point where in a very few years we are looking
at probably the most significant cause of death in the world will relate to the
use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs.
So I think we have a very serious problem on our hands. We
are sort of having a bash at it, I suppose, with this type of legislation. We
really have a worse problem here and I guess it is coming down to a moral
problem. There is a group of individuals who are producing tobacco for a profit,
and that product that they produce has serious addictive consequences to
individuals, or most individuals I suppose, who use these products. They have
very serious, deleterious health effects on those very same people, resulting in
premature death.
What is particularly reprehensible is that these companies
are actively recruiting new entrants to the smoking of their products through
advertising, through sponsorships, through product placement. As the Opposition
House Leader said, you see a movie, and a particular cigarette or tobacco
product would be associated with a movie star. You walk into a convenience store
and what do you see in many cases behind a counter? A vast row right in your
face, a whole panel or two panels of cigarette products right in your face. They
are not allowed to advertise but they can stick their products in your face and
make it appear that these are totally acceptable products from a consumer's
point of view when, in fact, they are addictive, toxic substances that will
cause premature death, poison your system, destroy your health, cost innumerable
dollars to the health care system, and yet we continue to permit this activity
in our midst and permit companies to make a fortune producing and selling these
products.
I would be more interested in finding ways to prevent these
products from being sold. I will say that one thing this Province has done, for
the most part, with the exception of the Labrador circumstance which is, I
suppose, a special case, is that when the Canadian government reduced the taxes
on tobacco, our Province refused to pass those along to people. One of the most
significant deterrents to young people smoking - the evidence we heard in our
committee - was that the price of tobacco to young people continues to be a
deterrent.
If you can keep the price up, I suppose, attempting to force
tobacco retailers not to break up packages and sell cigarettes one at a time,
that is one way of providing some deterrent. Obviously, people who have access
to these products - young people themselves, if they get access to the products
- they can sell them or resell them on an individual basis, but price continues
to be an important factor in preventing recruitment of new smokers to the
companies who want to make money on this poison in our society.
Mr. Speaker, the minister talked about the other part of the
government's program. We first heard about this in June of 1997, during a
federal election. During a federal election in June of 1997, the Premier spoke
about an effort on behalf of this Province and other Atlantic Provinces to
tackle the tobacco companies through court action. The next time we heard
anything about it was during the last provincial election, almost two years
later. The next time we heard a peep out of this government about tackling the
tobacco companies was during the previous election in February of this year;
almost a two-year wait to hear anything about it.
We keep talking about legislation that could be used to make
it easier to sue tobacco companies. I hear noises being made but I do not see
any legislation. The Government of British Columbia introduced that legislation
some two years ago. They have already issued a statement of claim. They are
actively pursuing this matter in terms of litigation. The way has already been
paved by the Americans. A number of American states and the American federal
government have pursued legal action.
This is not something that takes a tremendous amount of time.
It is not quite a no-brainer when it comes to taking this type of action because
you are dealing with a very serious matter and considerable amounts of money.
The path has already been beaten in Canada and in the United States, and it is
not something that we would have to do a tremendous amount of work in taking any
particular leadership role in this matter. The way has been prepared and it is
time for us to start taking that action.
I did note some talk during the election campaign that the
government was considering putting out some sort of a plan whereby lawyers could
participate in suing the companies on a contingency basis. I did notice
something about that in the campaign of the government as part of their way of
funding lawsuits against tobacco companies. When I heard that, I was very
surprise that in a situation where the way has already been paved by other
provinces and states of the United States in pursuing the companies, that
government would even consider not taking on this action by itself. I do not
think any other jurisdiction has done that.
I would certainly think that the government has competent,
capable lawyers able to initiate a lawsuit of this nature against the companies.
I would certainly hope that the government would do that, and if they did not
have capable and competent counsel experienced in that field, surely such could
be acquired very easily either from our own profession or Bar here or in other
parts of Canada.
I would hope that we would not expect, if the government was
suing for the recovery of the health care costs associated with looking after
people who are victims of tobacco, cigarette smoking and addiction, I would hope
that the taxpayers would recover that.
I have never ever heard before of a government considering a
contingency legal action. That is done for people who cannot afford to take the
risk involved, who cannot afford to pay for legal counsel and have to have a
contingency arrangement because they cannot afford the cost of litigation. That
is not something that government should be doing.
That sounded very odd to me, that government would even be
contemplating - that the Minister of Health would even contemplate - sharing the
recovery of health care costs with members of the legal profession operating on
a private basis. I would be very surprised if government would actually pursue
that. I have never heard of any government ever doing that, but wonders never
cease in this government.
I would hope that existing government lawyers in the
Department of Justice are capable and competent in carrying out such litigation.
If they need assistance from other counsel, whether they be in the private Bar
here in the Province or with other governments - I am sure the Government of
British Columbia who has already passed the legislation, who has already
initiated legal action, would be prepared to assist by seconding someone to this
government for a few months to help with this process or share their knowledge
and experience with the lawyers working for the government here in this
Province. That progressive British Columbia Government who has already changed
their legislation, making class action suits possible; who has already changed
their legislation to allow this litigation to go forward; who has already
initiated legal process in the court, I am sure they are prepared to share that
knowledge and expertise and research information with the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
If there are any difficulties in that regard, I would be
happy to write the Premier of British Columbia and ask him to do that.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Sure, I would be happy to write and ask him
to share the expertise of the British Columbia Government, because there seems
to be a danger that this government does not feel that they have the ability to
do it themselves. They want to give it out to private lawyers outside of the
government.
MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman must know that
within two weeks the NDP Premier wrecked the economy of New Brunswick. I suspect
that he would do it down here in one day, with the size of our economy.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see and say that
the progressive Government of British Columbia has taken the initiative in
changing their legislation to allow a proper action against the tobacco
companies. They have already initiated court action in British Columbia. I know
that the government is talking about following the lead of the NDP government in
British Columbia in that regard.
I am suggesting that there could be a level of cooperation
here. If the spade work has already been done, if the research has already been
done, if they have taken this lead, I am sure that the lawyers in the Justice
Department are quite capable and competent in following up on that lead and
pursuing legal action without the government having to say to private lawyers
outside of government: We will give you a piece of the action if you will take
some of the risks. I do not know if there is any risk.
I think that the result of this litigation is a foregone
conclusion. In the United States, for example, many states have reached
agreement - including the federal government in the United States - with the
tobacco companies for a significant amount of restitution of the costs of
looking after people whose health has been destroyed by the use of tobacco.
I am sure that our government, if they are prepared to be
aggressive - a two-year wait, so far, does not appear to be very aggressive, but
- if they are prepared to be aggressive, I think we can achieve some results in
saving, in recouping some of the money that our health care system has been
spending and will continuously spend in looking after people who unfortunately
have become addicted to tobacco and whose use of tobacco has caused very serious
problems to their health, has resulted in premature aging, premature diseases,
and premature death in many instances.
I think it is one of the modern scourges, a scourge of our
times, the consequences of tobacco use. I say this as someone who smoked for a
number of years myself - many years. I started as a young teenager, just barely
a teenager. It took a long time; it is a very difficult addiction to break.
I encourage anybody who has succumbed to that addiction to
work very hard and get motivated to stop because it is obviously going to
lengthen your life if you do so. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is
that we take whatever measures we can to prevent and discourage young people
from taking up smoking. It is a very sad fact.
I know that the Minister of Health mentioned it. I know the
Minister Responsible for the Status of Women has to be very discouraged to know
that the most significant number of recruits to the smoking population are in
fact young women. I think that is a very, very discouraging piece of
information, and any effort that can be undertaken to stop that - if anybody has
any methods that we can undertake to prevent that or discourage that in any way
possible, whether it be the use of negative advertising, the demonstrating of
what a turnoff tobacco smoke is and tobacco breath is, if you want, to young
people, I think any measures should be undertaken.
I hope government is also considering using some more of its
money that it collects from the tobacco companies - because we do collect a
considerable amount of money from the tobacco companies - using more of its
money to perhaps have some targeted advertising against a particular group.
I wonder if the minister can elaborate on what government is
doing or plans to do in that regard. Is the government going to look at this
particular group now being recruited by the tobacco companies into the legions
of people who smoke? Is the minister going to do that?
I know she knows that one of the again startling statistics
that we see happening is that lung cancer is on the rise in women because
principally, if not for the sole reason, there are more women smokers, or there
have been more women smokers historically, and it is going to continue to rise
for some time because more women are smoking for longer. The effect of that
smoking is now having consequences on people in the form of lung cancer and
other diseases that come from smoking.
I wonder, does the minister have any specific plans to target
young women as potential victims of the tobacco industry. Is the minister
prepared to look at this as a serious health problem in young people? Probably
one of the most serious health problems facing young people today, particularly
young women, is getting into the clutches of the tobacco industry by being
addicted to smoking cigarettes, by being addicted to tobacco. What specific
plans does the minister have to target this group of people who are potential
victims of the tobacco industry?
So in addition, Mr. Speaker, to amending the Tobacco Control
Act to make the ability of government to enforce legislation against tobacco use
more effective, what specific measures would the Department of Health be
undertaking to ensure that we are able to discourage young women from smoking
cigarettes and from becoming addicted to tobacco? Young men too, of course. I am
not suggesting that this is solely a problem of young women but it is a
startling statistic, that there are more young women being recruited than young
men. I hope that the minister will undertake an enhanced advertising program
using some of this money to ensure that we have as strong a program as we
possibly can to try to curb the use of tobacco by all citizens, and particularly
young people.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now she will
close the debate.
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Before I move second reading, I would like to take the
opportunity to answer a few of the questions raised by the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi with respect to the focus and attention that would need to be
put on addressing smoking, particularly in young women in the Province. This
particular piece of legislation, by reading it of course, would not do that
because this is a piece of legislation that is very much focused on the ability
of government, through a licensing process of vendors and retailers, to limit
the sale of tobacco to those under the age of nineteen and to impose fines, as
outlined under the bill, ranging from smaller fines to higher priced fines with
repeated offense, and eventually involving the loss of the license to sell
tobacco, which I am sure would be a big loss to retailers, particularly because
of its revenue generating capacity.
Specifically with respect to issues around smoking and
prevention, the issue does not lie with government alone. As I have mentioned in
a former ministerial statement in this House, government has been working for
the last two years with representatives of the Canadian Cancer Society,
Newfoundland branch, with the Newfoundland and Labrador Lung Association, with
the Heart and Stroke Association, with the Newfoundland Lung Association, with
physicians, particularly pediatricians, and other concerned citizens around,
addressing it as a community based issue. That is one of the reasons why our
government announced a $900,000 initiative over the next three years to begin to
address the issues around smoking and particularly targeting high-risk groups,
namely young women. We know that the incidence of lung cancer has increased. In
fact, it has equalled or surpassed the incidence of breast cancer in women, and
that is a very startling figure because of its relatedness to smoking and
second-hand smoke.
We are very concerned, not only from a health perspective but
also from a human perspective where we know many of these very cancers can be
preventable if we are able to target those particular age groups before they
start smoking. So yes, the focus of this campaign - which again is not
identified in this bill. This is a bill specifically related to vendors and
those that are selling cigarettes, outlining very clearly the sale of cigarettes
to minors being an offense rising in intensity over time and in violation. It
very much makes the store owners responsible and does not put children in a
criminal position by buying cigarettes if they are under the age of nineteen.
We are working on a very focused approach. The challenge we
have is that we are competing with tobacco companies with billions of dollars
sunk into advertising right across the country. They are not multinationals,
they are transnationals. They cross all over the world. You know, if you have
been anywhere in the United States particularly, there are huge billboards
targeting young people with cartoon-like figures. We know that it is very
successful in its advertising capacity to attract young smokers.
So we are working with all of the various groups. One of our
main, I think, approaches is to actually work with young people who started to
smoke and do some focus testing around what it was that actually tuned them into
smoking, so that we can learn from their own personal experiences and maybe use
some sort of an anti-campaign, based on that information, on how to prevent
other children from starting to smoke.
Again, the ages are becoming younger, which is very
disturbing. We do believe that many of the children have greater access than
ever before. Maybe not from their parents, but from school yards and from people
that are only too happy to sell to minors. There is a campaign underway. The
various groups - the coalition is what we are calling ourselves - in fact have
come to the final process of hiring a coordinator to begin that particular part
of the process whereby they will target their campaign at younger people, and
also try to lobby government and other parties to really become much more aware
of what is happening with smoking in our homes, in our restaurants, and in other
entertainment establishments.
Perhaps the area of biggest concern is the introduction of
young children, babies, to secondhand smoke. We are seeing, also, a very much
increased incidence of asthma and other allergic reactions because of the
introduction of secondhand smoke. Now we are becoming much more aware of the
hazards around secondhand smoke. We are very concerned and we are working with
all of the groups to try to put in place a very directed campaign.
Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading of "An Act To Amend
The Tobacco Control Act," Bill 11.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act,"
read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on
tomorrow. (Bill 11).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 3.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Health
And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act". (Bill 5).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the hon. member, when I get through all the bills of
the Minister of Finance today I may just get the Oscar.
This particular amendment is fairly straightforward. As hon.
members may recall in the Budget that was presented in the House in late March,
we moved the threshold for the payment of the post-secondary health and
education tax from $120,000 minimum payroll per year to $150,000. In order to
accommodate that upward adjustment in the threshold level we need to put this
amendment through the House.
It is simply an issue of housekeeping. The new threshold has
the affect of removing several hundred small businesses from the responsibility
and obligation of having to access and remit the particular tax in question,
which is a positive thing. It has been well received by the business community,
the Board of Trade and those groups. We think it is a good thing to do.
There is a lot of debate and discussion about this particular
tax. While we, as government, are in no position to, obviously, indicate that
this tax will not be with us for some time, we are doing our best efforts to
raise the threshold level against which remittances have to be assessed and made
to a point where it is having less and less impact on small businesses.
I guess I do not move second reading until the Opposition has
had a chance to speak to it. Those are the guts of the bill. I am pleased to be
able to present it for discussion in the House on behalf of the Minister of
Finance who is not here today.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, on this side of the House, we support the general
thrust. We had hoped the minister and the government would have seen fit to
eliminate the payroll tax altogether. The aim of the government, as announced a
few days ago by the Minister of Finance, is that that is the objective. We had
hoped that it could have been achieved.
I cannot help but note the title of this particular act. It
is called, "An Act To Amend The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act."
That title seems to camouflage the real reason. This is a payroll tax, a tax on
jobs, a tax that stifles the investment incentive that businessmen have,
particularly small business people.
As well, we note that the rate as announced in the Budget,
the amount has changed from $120,000 to $150,000. That again is good news. We
note as well that this bill, in effect, I say to the minister, is really
ratifying what has been existing for the last two years; because this particular
piece of legislation probably should have been amended last year but was not
because this particular amendment covers both 1998 and 1999. So, in essence, it
covers two years rather than one year. Of course, these changes were announced
in the 1998 Budget and they were amended in the 1999 Budget.
We on this side want to say that we look forward to the day
when this government will listen to what the Board of Trade is saying, listen to
what the Chamber of Commerce is saying, listen to what small businessmen are
saying, and see fit to be able to eliminate this tax altogether.
Mr. Speaker, just in case the minister thinks there has been
any change in the revenues to the Province, in essence these changes have been
made without any impact at all on the revenues to the Province because in
Exhibit II, the Estimated Provincial and Federal Revenues in the Budget, you
will note that the estimated revenue from this tax in 1998-1999 was $68.5
million. The estimated revenues for the year 1999-2000 is equally $68.5 million.
So, in essence, the ceiling has been raised from $120,000 of remuneration to
$150,000 of remuneration, and it has not cost the government one cent in terms
of revenue if you follow their budgetary figures.
This particular change has not been a big burden or a big
loss of revenue for the Province. It certainly means a lot to small business,
but it has not meant any decrease in revenues to the Province. One has to assume
that the increase in the businesses that have total remuneration packages in
excess of $150,000 are sufficiently healthy that they are able to, shall we say,
make up for the losses of revenue in the case of the people or companies who
have revenues under $150,000.
We say to the government as well that it is this kind of
taxation that has a great deal to do with driving business out of the Province.
It has an impact on job creation. Many small businesses say that they would be
prepared to expand if by expanding they would not end up putting themselves in a
position whereby they would have to pay extra taxes.
Mr. Speaker, this particular tax is a factor that prohibits
and discourages some small businesses from establishing in Newfoundland and
Labrador. It is a fact that this tax has no other equivalent tax in other parts
of Canada, so therefore it is a tax that is particular to Newfoundland and
Labrador and as such it certainly does not do much by way of encouraging
business to relocate here or those that are here to stay in Newfoundland and
Labrador in the future.
We on this side say, good to the government. We applaud them
for at least moving in the right direction. We just say to them that we look
forward to the day when this government will be able to eliminate the tax. We
have again given a commitment on our side, and it is part of our policy, that in
the life of the mandate that we will have in the near future that we give a
commitment to the business people of Newfoundland and Labrador that, over the
life of that mandate, we will eliminate the payroll tax. It is a tax that is
wrong, a tax that drives business away. We will reverse it.
In fact, it is a misnomer to call this tax anything connected
to a health and post-secondary education tax. This tax is nothing more than a
tax grab by the government, and has always been a tax grab by the government. It
was a tax that was thought up by the Clyde Wells administration. It never
existed during the PC administration.
We also have questions about whether or not this $68,500,000
is specifically targeted toward either health or education. We question it
because we see the cutbacks that have occurred to education funding, and
particularly post-secondary education. We know the health care budget has
increased, but there has never been any direct connection between paying this
tax and offering better health services, and it certainly has not resulted in
better educational services at the post-secondary level.
We on this side say that next year you should be looking to
eliminate it altogether. This is a second step in the right direction but, on
the other hand, it should never, ever have been introduced at all in the first
place.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs. If he speaks now we will close the debate.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is interesting to hear the Opposition critic for finance
over on the other side talking about the elimination of the post-secondary
education and health tax, the payroll tax. I marvel at his logic.
I cannot help but, before I move second reading, make the
observation that on the one hand every tax that is involved, the hon. member
wants to eliminate. On the other hand, he is going to increase spending by
hundreds of millions of dollars are per his Blue Book platform. In the context
of all of that, he is going to increase services. It is very difficult to put it
all together.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. MATTHEWS: I do not want to raise the level of debate
beyond where it is so, against great protestations, I move second reading.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Health And
Post-Secondary Education Tax Act", read a second time, order referred to a
Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 5)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I am in dread of bringing in the
next one. I am afraid what the Minister of Municipal Affairs (inaudible) might
stir up, but I am going to call Order 7, Bill 14, "An Act Respecting
Municipalities".
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting
Municipalities". (Bill 14)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs.
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is probably not for everybody sitting in the House as
important a day as it is, in fact, for the members of the councils and municipal
governments around the Province, because today we are giving second reading or
introducing for second reading a bill in the House that is, in effect, a bill to
amend the Municipalities Act that governs the operation of every municipality in
the Province, with the exception of the three cities that operate under their
own pieces of legislation.
MR. EFFORD: And Port de Grave.
MR. MATTHEWS: And Port de Grave, that operates under no
legislation.
In effect, 287 towns and 175 local service districts in the
Province are governed by this piece of legislation. The legislation has been
developed over the past eight years of consultation between the major
stakeholders in the Province, that being: the towns themselves, the Federation
of Municipalities that represents them and their interests, the Association of
Municipal Administrators, who have been involved in the development of this
legislation, and in addition to that, the enormous amount of public opportunity
that was given for the public to have input into this particular bill.
I am more than heartened to refer to not only letters from
the Federation of Municipalities that speak to the timeliness of this bill and
the importance of it being passed through the House in this spring session so
that it can take effect for next January and that sort of support, but I am also
encouraged by the level of support that the general public seems to be giving
this bill, if judging by the editorial in The Telegram recently has any
validity and affect to it.
On May 21 the editorial board of The Telegram wrote
that this is in effect a piece of legislation that is long overdue and that
should be passed at the earliest possible opportunity so that towns can take
advantage of what is in it.
I think with the adoption or introduction of a bill of this
magnitude it is important that I highlight for the House some of the provisions
of this bill, because it is a fairly extensive and expansive revision of the
Municipalities Act. As a matter of fact, it is almost a complete rewrite of the
act, notwithstanding amendments that have gone through the House over the past
number of years to improve the ability of towns to deliver services to the
people who they serve.
There are five areas that are covered in this new
Municipalities Act. It deals extensively with the expansion of the tax base and
the latitude for imposing and collecting taxes that municipalities will have. It
allows for improved flexibility in the administrative and financial matters of
the town's operation. It clarifies certain statutory and procedural matters as
well as governance provisions. It is in effect a more user friendly act in terms
of how it is laid out and how it is worded so that it can be more easily
understood and applied by the municipalities. Of course, it provides new
authorities for the municipalities. As I said earlier, the stakeholders are
eagerly awaiting the introduction or adoption of this piece of legislation.
One of the reasons why we need to get this done as quickly as
we can, and why we have introduced it in the spring sitting, is so that upon
passage of this bill out of this session we will be able to move very quickly to
do a high level of in-servicing for town councillors, town clerks and others who
are affected by this act in their day-to-day business activities. We need to get
on with it so that we can do those things over the next several months
preparatory to January 1 being the actual implementation date of the amendments.
With respect to the scope of expanded tax imposition and
collection capabilities, the bill provides that, amongst other things, arrears
of poll taxes can be collected by way of payroll deduction. We have expanded
that provision to include not only current year's taxes, but also taxes that are
due further back than the current year's poll tax. Municipalities will no longer
be able to collect under this new act both a poll tax and a property tax from a
husband and wife who jointly own property in which they have tax obligations.
The provision of the current act as opposed to that does not allow for that
distinction, so a double taxation situation exist which must be corrected.
In addition to that I would highlight the fact that as of
July 1 each year, under the new act, there will be a deadline set whereby
taxpayers claiming an exemption from poll taxes will have to file a form in a
prescribed fashion. This will address the problem that municipalities currently
have with respect to people applying for exemption back over many years. There
will be a statutory limitation put on the exemption for poll taxes in that
regard.
The bill also contains a definition of what constitutes a
business. This provision, or the amendment in the new act, will allow
municipalities to be able to collect taxes from businesses which, while they may
not have a physical presence in a town, in fact do business in a town. At the
moment that is not possible, but under the new act the municipalities will be
able to find, source out, identify and tax businesses that, while they may not
have any presence, while they may not have any domicile in terms of address in
the town, nevertheless are doing business in the towns. They are selling their
services to the people who live in a municipality, but at the moment they are
escaping the levy of any type of a municipal tax. That will be corrected and
that tax base will be effectively expanded in the new bill.
The new bill also provides the ability for municipalities to
impose a direct sellers tax on sellers that are otherwise operating within a
town boundary, as well as businesses that are doing business in a more generic
fashion within a town boundary, and expand their tax base somewhat in that
regard. The bill provides new authority to regulate and to put those taxes on a
basis where they will be legally binding and therefore appropriately assessable
and collectible.
The act provides a number of other changes. The ones that I
will refer to now have to do mainly with administrative and management matters
with respect to town councils. The bill now provides that a manager can be
absent from a council meeting with council approval. Currently they are
required, by law, to be in attendance at council meetings. The current act
requires a manager, as a matter of fact, to attend all council meetings.
Sometimes that may not be necessary or may not be possible for various personal
circumstances. The new act clarifies that and gives the council latitude to
exempt a manager or a town clerk from being at a certain meeting if in fact it
is not necessary.
The new act allows the municipality to set, in a more relaxed
fashion, the terms of employment and the basis on which people can be employed
and/or dismissed as employees of the town. That is important, because currently
it is a very prescriptive regime. We believe that town clerks and other people
who are employed by towns should be able to be employed on a basis that is
suitable to and meets the needs of the town within which they are working.
These are important changes and these are changes that have
all been endorsed by the Federation, by the towns and by the administrators. My
colleagues here are anxious that I conclude this introduction, but having spoken
to this bill about ten days ago when we announced in the press conference we
were going to bring this forward, and having spoken to some of the provisions in
the bill in the Estimates Committee that was held recently with respect to the
estimates of my department, it became clear to me that this is an important
piece of legislation, for purposes of the Opposition, and they might want to
debate and discuss some of these provisions.
There are about thirty other new provisions in the act that
affect how towns will operate or be able to operate in the future. I don't want
to take the time, because I don't have the time at this point, to outline all of
these. Let me say this. The changes are all important, they are all significant
and they all together will culminate and have the accumulative affect of
providing a better circumstance for town councils and for those who work for
councils in running their affairs.
I would like at this time to say no more in terms of
introducing the bill, other than to say to the members on the other side of the
House that if there are specific questions or concerns with respect to any
amendments that this act contains, I would be happy to answer them at the
conclusion of the debate when we move second reading.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Member for Cape St.
Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. J. BYRNE: It will be the first time you answered all
the questions, I say to the Government House Leader.
Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation, Bill 14, "An Act
Respecting Municipalities", is a long time coming, some eight years in the
making. There has been a lot of consultation going on with the municipalities.
One of the better things, I suppose, with respect to this
piece of legislation, and it was actually in the news release from the
Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, is that it has produced
a very user-friendly act.
We all know that in municipalities and towns across this
Province there are all types of individuals getting elected, with varying
degrees of intelligence, with varying degrees of education and what have you,
and the previous Municipalities Act was a very difficult piece of legislation to
follow, and very confusing.
Oftentimes we saw members of councils in a conflict of
interest and they really did not know they were in a conflict of interest. I
have had concerns, calls from my district, from municipalities, where people
were wondering if such and such is in a conflict of interest, and even
councillors themselves and mayors. This piece of legislation should help clarify
that. I will get back to that later on in my comments with respect to this piece
of legislation.
The minister says there is a bit of a rush now to get this
piece of legislation through and get it passed through the House of Assembly. I
think we on this side of the House wou