Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Oral Questions — 2 December 2002 (44th General Assembly, 4th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 38)
2002-12-02
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December 2, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 38
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
On November 28, 2002, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy raised a
point of privilege concerning certain comments which he stated the hon. the
Leader of the Opposition had made to the effect that the Leader of the
Opposition and his caucus had been provided with information with respect to the
Lower Churchill development by members of Cabinet and by members of the
Government caucus. As has been stated before in connection with claims of breach
of privilege, a case cannot be founded on the basis of statements made outside
the House, Beauchesne's 6 th Edition 31. Also, in order to
found a case of breach of privilege, matters must be related to members'
parliamentary duties, Beauchesne's 92. It appears that the comments
in question were made outside the House and do not relate to the member's
parliamentary duties and, in the opinion of the Chair, there is no prima facie
case of breach of privilege.
As well, the hon. the Minister of Finance raised a point of privilege similar
to the point of privilege of the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy. In that
case, the hon. the Minister of Finance took exception to the hon. the Opposition
Leader's comments: If he is clean, what about everybody else? It is the Chair's
opinion that those comments do not impede the hon. minister in the performance
of her parliamentary duties and do not amount to a prima facie case.
As well, the hon. the Government House Leader raised a point of order after
Question Period, on Thursday, November 28, concerning the raising of points of
order during Oral Questions. While it is true that the practice is not
encouraged, it is not prohibited by any rules. However, the Chair strongly
discourages members from raising points of order during Oral Question Period as
they do interrupt the flow of the questions, as the hon. the Government House
Leader has said; and, perhaps more importantly, it takes up the time which
should be devoted to questions and answers on matters of public importance and
policy.
Again, I ask hon. members to keep their points of order during Question
Period until the period is over, so that we can have a smooth flow and Question
Period can be used as it is so designed to be used.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to inform hon. members that Mr. Edward Andrews, Biology
Professor at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College in Corner Brook, was recently named a
2002 recipient of Memorial University's Distinguished Teacher Award.
The Distinguished Teacher Award is one of the most prestigious awards that
Memorial University bestows on its faculty, and recognizes individuals who,
amongst other things, show integrity, enthusiasm, innovation, and patience, as a
teacher.
Professor Andrews has been a teacher at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College since
1976 and has shown a genuinely enthusiastic approach to his teaching.
Not only is Professor Andrews known for his teaching abilities, but also for
his interest in computer-assisted pedagogy - an interest that led to his
becoming the first Manager of Computing and Communications at Sir Wilfred
Grenfell College in 1994. His motivation in these areas eventually helped build
the information technology infrastructure which exists at Sir Wilfred Grenfell
College today.
For the past decade or so, Professor Andrews has also been involved with the
Association for Biology Laboratory Education. Here, Professor Andrews served for
two terms on the board of directors and recently held a three-year position as
the editor of Labstracts , a publication which he successfully converted
from a standard print format to a Web-based format.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in recognizing Professor
Edward Andrews on receiving this prestigious award.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is a distinctive pleasure for me to rise and offer
congratulations to the Parish of St. Peter's in Mount Pearl on the Official
Blessing and Dedication of their new church.
In 1977, Fathers Henri and Adrian, Parish Priests at Mary Queen of the World,
decided to offer a weekend Eucharistic Liturgy at St. Peter's Elementary
School. In 1982, the Archbishop decided to create the new Parish of St. Peter's
and Father Raymond Lahey was appointed as its first pastor.
In 1985, when O'Donel High School was constructed, permission was granted
to build a new chapel onto the end of the gymnasium and it has been from this
site that St. Peter's Parish carried on its mission of faith to the community.
About ten years ago, the Parish Council decided to focus on the building of a
new church. Under the leadership of Father Charles Kelly, the entire membership
of the parish set about to establish budgets, set priorities, find the most
appropriate site and oversee the architectural design and the construction
phase.
The sod-turning ceremony for the new Church was held on July 22, 2001. Eric
Jerrett and his team at ISR Architecture Ltd. were chosen as the consultants and
the construction contract was awarded to Eastern Construction Limited.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, all members of the House will want to join me in
offering congratulations and best wishes to all parishioners at St. Peter's on
the completion of their new church and to wish them continued success in their
faith mission.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, today I would like to bring attention to the recipient of the
inaugural John J. Sullivan Award which recognizes those who have dedicated their
lives to policing in this Province.
In late October, this award was given to Mr. Jim Lynch in recognition of his
years of service in police enforcement. Mr. Lynch served in St. John's, Corner
Brook, Placentia and Argentia. During World War II Mr. Lynch worked closely with
commanding officers of the US navy and army forces on behalf of Newfoundland.
Mr. Lynch resigned from the Constabulary in 1950 and joined the CN police,
where he served for the next thirty-two years. From 1960 to the time of his
retirement in 1982, at the rank of superintendent, he was CN police officer in
charge of Newfoundland, Labrador and Cape Breton.
Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that Mr. Lynch has received other
awards. He received the Canadian Chiefs of Police Service Medal, the Queen's
Silver Jubilee Medal and the Canada Exemplary Police Service Medal.
Mr. Speaker, John J. Sullivan, who this award is named in honour of, was the
first native-born Newfoundlander to become Inspector General of the Newfoundland
Constabulary. I ask members of this House to join me in recognizing Mr. Lynch on
receiving this award.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As members of this hon. House, we all receive invitations to events and
activities in our respectful districts.
A few weeks ago I received such an invitation. It was a birthday party in
Branch, St. Mary's Bay, for Saturday, November 30 to celebrate the 87 th
birthday of a very special lady, Mrs. Annie Power. Mrs. Annie Power, known to
all of us as Mrs. Nan was in great form on Saturday night as she was surrounded
by over 200 family and friends who came out to celebrate with her.
Speaker after speaker talked about her generosity, her faith, her community
spirit, but most of all her love and commitment to her family and friends. At
eighty-seven years of age, Mrs. Nan is showing no signs of slowing down.
When she delivered her own address she spoke about the great life she has
enjoyed, the wonderful warmth she has received from all her family and friends,
and the fondness of her hometown and to quote her, "My happiest memories
are here in Branch, St. Mary's Bay."
Mr. Speaker, Saturday night was a special celebration for a very special lady
and I all members of this hon. House to join with me in extending warmest
greetings and congratulations to Mrs. Nan Power of Branch as she celebrates her
87 th birthday.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell
Island.
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make aware to the members of the
general public and indeed, our colleagues in the House of Assembly, that the 60 th
Anniversary of Bell Island entertainer Harry Hibbs birth takes place this month.
Unidisc Music Canada has re-released the entire ARC recordings of Harry Hibbs'
career on compact disk for a new generation of fans here and across Canada to
enjoy.
These eight albums were originally released on vinyl between 1968 and 1972,
when Hibbs was in the peak of his career and have been out of print for more
than twenty years. It is worthy to point out, Mr. Speaker, that through 1968 to
1969, Harry Hibbs sold as many records in Canada as every other Canadian artist
combined. He was recognized with a Juno Award in 1972 for Best Folk Artist of
the Year.
To see these recordings available again to the general public is a
significant achievement. Mr. Speaker, I hope a new generation of fans can
appreciate the pioneering influence that Harry Hibbs was for our musical
industry, paving the way for successors like Great Big Sea and The Ennis
Sisters.
I would also to credit the efforts of Wabana Music and Russell Bowers who
reignited interest in Hibbs in the release of The Very Best of Harry Hibbs
Volume One in 2000 and to ensure that these master recordings of the music
legend, buried in a vault in Montreal, were acquired by Unidisc for distribution
once again.
Harry Hibbs' music will always have a special place in the hearts and minds
of everyone in this Province, especially Bell Islanders, and to see these
recordings available once again will ensure that his musical legacy will not be
soon forgotten.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker, to make a member's
statement?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to make a member's
statement?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to commend VOCM Radio and all the volunteers who were
associated with the Dial a Carol radiothon yesterday, many of which included my
colleagues here in the House of Assembly. Almost $6,000 was raised for the St.
John's Boys and Girls Club to help offset the cost of their programs. As the
MHA for St. John's Centre, I am fully aware of the very valuable work of the
Boys and Girls Club as they operate from the Mews Centre on Mundy Pond Road and
Buckmasters Circle Community Centre, both of which are in my district.
Mr. Speaker, the Boys and Girls Club offers a wide range of useful programs
which offer social, educational, recreational and life skills benefits for the
children in these areas. A measure of the merit of these programs was recently
evident when students at an area school, Holy Cross Elementary, were recognized
for winning a national award. It was the second national award in two years for
that school and the school was also designated a peaceful school by an
international organization.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the achievements of the students at Holy Cross,
and other area schools can be directly attributed to the influence of quality
programs offered by the Boys and Girls Club.
Mr. Speaker, many of these programs are available only to our children
because of the volunteers who offer their time and energy to the Boys and Girls
Club. I commend the organizers of Dial a Carol and their volunteers who helped
make it even more successful than last year's event.
The Boys and Girls Club will be hosting Christmas Raffles on December 8 at
Bingo Country on Ricket's Road and also on December 15 at the Mews Centre on
Mundy Pond Road, so I would encourage hon. members and all people to make an
effort to support this worthy cause.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise this afternoon to inform members that on Wednesday, December 4,
representatives from nine Newfoundland and Labrador companies and organizations
will be in New Orleans, Louisiana for the 2002 International Workboat Show.
This government made a commitment to market and promote the Province's
marine technological capabilities and expertise in its Renewal Strategy for Jobs
and Growth.
There is an abundance of marine technological expertise in Newfoundland and
Labrador and the International Workboat Show is one way we can tell the world
about it, and in turn, assist our companies in penetrating new markets.
The International Workboat Show is North America's premier trade show for
inland and costal marine firms. It boasts over 900 exhibitors and has a
twenty-four year history.
Attendees and exhibitors will include manufacturers, boatbuilders,
distributers and service providers to the marine industry from around the world.
This is a very high profile event. It is an excellent opportunity to showcase
the Province's sector capabilities and potential and hopefully will lead to
new commercial business opportunities for the Newfoundland and Labrador
companies that will participate.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in wishing the following
companies well at the 2002 International Workboat Show: Aqua Purge, Lewisporte;
Industrial Marine Lighting, Mount Pearl; Oceanic Corporation, St. John's;
Genoa Design, Kelligrews; Consolidated Technologies Ltd., St. John's; ICAN,
Mount Pearl; Diesel Injection Sales and Service, St. John's; C&W
Industrial Fabrication and Marine Equipment, Bay Bulls; and The Marine Institute
- Centre for Marine Simulation, St. John's.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, we, on this side of the House, join with the Acting Minister of
Industry, Trade and Technology in congratulating those companies and promoting
the renowned expertise and worldwide expertise of the industry that he has
talked about. Any efforts that government can lend its hand to, and members of
the House can lend their support or hand to, directly or indirectly, in
promoting such expertise can only bode well for the economy of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, obviously we want to be associated with the remarks of the
minister, but I would also like to add this. We have seen the ingenuity and the
experience of such technology involved in a local company and local person, I
believe, whose hull design, for example, is now amongst the leading in terms of
competition for the America's Cup, the international race, in terms of a
sailing race.
Mr. Speaker, it is a natural advantage that this place has in terms of boat
design, and one that -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. E. BYRNE: Just by leave, to conclude?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. E. BYRNE: It is a natural advantage that we have, one that people in
our Province, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, are continuing to build upon,
using technology and innovation. Anything that we, in this House, or anything
that this House can do, to support and attract and add to that, we would
certainly applaud and lend our support to.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
I would like to say, also, that we wish these companies well as they go to
New Orleans. There are many places around this Province, Mr. Speaker, that build
great boats, some of the ones that are mentioned here that will be attending,
and I know there are others in places like Centreville, Glenwood and other areas
of the Province that build great boats as well.
As the previous speaker indicated, one of the companies here, Oceanic
Corporation, helped design the hull of the boat that will enter the -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: - helped design the hull of the ship that will represent
Switzerland in the America's Cup challenge, and they also helped design the
hull of one of the American boats that is also entered into that race.
So, Mr. Speaker, we wish these companies well as they attend this
International Workboat Show, and we hope that it generates much more business
for this Province.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to provide hon. members with an update
on the potential Gull Island development. Over the past couple of weeks, there
has been much debate and discussion regarding this proposed project development.
Many opinions have been expressed stating that this government has already
concluded an agreement with the Province of Quebec, and that we have an
agreement to present to the people of the Province.
Mr. Speaker, I must confirm again today that no agreement on the development
of the Gull Island Project has been finalized. Much work has been completed on
this file; however, government has not reached the point of concluding a deal.
Mr. Speaker, there is still work to be done. We will take the time to examine
the results of the deliberations of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's Board of
Directors and review the consultations that took place with the people of
Labrador. We will reflect on the information and advice that we have received
from each of these groups. The Prime Minister has also recently raised the
concept of a national east-west energy grid, an idea that we have promoted for
many years. This issue has been discussed as recently as September at the Joint
Energy Ministers Meeting in Winnipeg, without much interest, I might add, from
the federal government. We will be seeking clarification of the Prime Minister's
position on this initiative.
Mr. Speaker, this government will take into account everything before
concluding any deals on the development of Gull Island. We intend to take as
much time as we need to do our work and review all the issues. Mr. Speaker, we
will not be rushed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MATTHEWS: Some hon. members would like to see government debate a
deal that has not yet been concluded. We believe in informed debate: a debate
that reflects facts, not assumptions or misinformed opinions. When we reach a
deal, all details will be provided to the public for full debate. This will
ensure that any agreement is presented in a fair and factual manner, a manner
that will permit a thorough examination of all of the details. The Premier has
committed to a full debate in the Legislature with a free vote to ensure that
this process is completely open.
Mr. Speaker, this government was not rushed into concluding an agreement on
the development of White Rose. This government was not rushed into concluding a
Voisey's Bay deal. I can assure all hon. members that we will not be rushed
into concluding a Gull Island development. We will only conclude an agreement on
the development of this resource when we are certain that we have achieved a
good deal on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This has been
our standard, and this is a commitment we will keep.
Mr. Speaker, this government is confident about its economic development
agenda. We have already witnessed the beginning of two major resource projects
this year, projects that will provide substantial benefits to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. We will continue to pursue an economic agenda that
includes projects that we believe are indeed in the best interest of the people
of this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a superior example, Mr. Speaker, of full throttle in reverse, I say.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: What makes it interesting is, on day one of this
session, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Premier, when reading an update on the Gull
Island hydro project negotiation with Quebec, concluded by saying: I am
confident that we will conclude negotiations in the near future, one way or
another, on Gull Island, maybe even this week.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious and clear to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador that this was a done deal. This agreement with Hydro-Quebec, the
details of this deal, they were shared with the Liberal caucus members. The
details were shared with the members of the Board of Directors of Newfoundland
and Labrador Hydro. Mr. Speaker, the business case with Quebec was done. It was
fait accompli, I say, it was a done deal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, perhaps now, more than ever, what is
required is the sharing of the details of this agreement with the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador who are owed complete and open and full disclosure as
to these details; and, secondly, the second reason, to ensure that any errors or
omissions are not repeated in any new and negotiated deal with Hydro-Quebec.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister, there may not be a deal but I think everybody in this
Province agrees that there probably was a deal. Does the minister expect people
in this Province to believe that the Board of Directors of Hydro voted and that
two people resigned over what was a working paper? I do not think the people
believe that, Mr. Minister.
I will say that when the meeting was held in Labrador last week, when that
meeting was over, nobody at the meeting from Labrador were any more enlightened
as to what this deal contained than they were prior to the meeting. What it was
is, it gave the government some idea and some parameters of what people in
Labrador expect on any deal that may be reached. I do not know why - with the
talk now of a national west/east energy grid - this government would insist on
pursuing with a Lower Churchill deal in a short period -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this government should wait -
if it is delayed another year - until we see what happens with that east/west
grid, and see if there is a better benefit for the people of this Province in
developing the Lower Churchill rather than rushing full steam ahead to develop
in conjunction with the Province of Quebec.
Thank you.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are obviously in light of the ministerial statement
delivered by the Minister of Mines and Energy. My questions are directed towards
him.
The minister has used today words like: proposed development; no agreement;
still a work in progress; work to be done; will not be rushed. Mr. Speaker, let
me ask the Minister of Mines and Energy this: How can he stand today in the
House and reconcile on the one hand that nothing has been done, that nothing has
been proposed, that we will not be rushed, and at the same time say to the
people of the Province that what they presented to the board of Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro was just some hypothetical agreement, some hypothetical proposal
that seen the two directors resign over it? How is it, Minister, that you can
stand today and say there was no agreement and last week you presented one and
when you ran into trouble you are now in full retreat?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I would remind the hon. member that what he suggests or states I said
- in fact, I did not say that no work had been done on the concept of developing
the project. On the contrary, I said in my ministerial statement a couple of
minutes ago that a lot of work had been done with respect to moving this project
forward and to moving this file forward.
In point of fact, Mr. Speaker, the truth is actually and factually this, it
is very simple: until we get conclusion reached on things like framework
agreements and other agreements that have to be concluded on, there is no final
agreement on project development.
What I said today in the House is consistent with what the Premier has said
and what I have said on other occasions, we have not reached full conclusion on
all matters that need to be brought to a conclusion in terms of discussion in
order to be able to move the project to a point of sanction. Until we get there,
and unless we get there, there obviously will be no announcement to be made. We
are confident, Mr. Speaker, in our economic agenda, we are confident in our
focus on doing projects like the ones we have done in past and like the ones we
hope to do in the future to move the economy of this Province forward rather
than backward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, may I conclude again by saying this? Our
economic development policy and agenda is not a rear-view approach. We are
looking forward. We are not looking backward, and that is the way we intend to
stay in terms of focus and progression.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Wouldn't the minister agree that if he stood in his place today and said
the deal that we had, and that the Premier negotiated, was not the right one,
that we have reevaluated and we are not proceeding on it? Wouldn't he agree
that creditability today for him and his government would lie in being
forthright with the people of the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, wouldn't the minister agree that
creditability for him and his government would lie in the fact - that if he
stood in his place today to say that the deal that we had was not acceptable to
the caucus or to the people of the Province and that we have agreed to start
again? Wouldn't that be the creditable approach, minister?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary; what I will agree to, and
what I will state again, is that the principles that we have stated, the ones
that we have outlined, the objectives that we are trying to reach an agreement
on, in any conclusion that we come to on a deal are, in fact, good, sound,
supportable, defensible and promotable positions. We are intent on getting a
project done with 100 per cent Newfoundland and Labrador ownership. We want to
ensure that we get the right North America escalator clause that provides us
with full and fair benefits forevermore. We intend to have recall rights that
will be acceptable and appropriate for us and the principles are the ones that
we are moving towards, hopefully, fleshing out in language and stated ways
forward so that our principles -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: - can be more than supported, they can be clearly seen as
having been achieved in a deal, if and when we get it done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me ask the minister this, some very specific questions: Isn't it a fact
that one of the contentious items of the deal that is now scrapped is this, that
while the minister, the Premier and the government maintained that the project
was going to be 100 per cent owned by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that it
was going to be primarily managed by Hydro Quebec? Isn't that one of the
reasons why you stood in your place today and said that now you have backtracked
on the deal you were proposing last week?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned three principles that were in the announcement we
made back in August, the Premier made with respect to moving this project
forward that we wanted to achieve on. The fourth one, that I did not mention a
minute ago, is the exact one that the member opposite brought forward, and that
is whether or not the project was going to be done and managed and owned and
executed by somebody other than us. On the contrary, to the concept of having
Hydro Quebec or anybody else doing this project, I can assure the hon. member
and the people of the Province that this project, if and when we do it, will be
managed in Newfoundland and Labrador. It will be staged out of this Province.
The engineering, the procurement and all of these activities will occur in this
Province. I can assure the hon. member that the appropriate benefits will be
achieved on this project as they were achieved on the Voisey's Bay and the
White Rose projects. So, we will follow our own good example. We will follow our
own good lead in what we do on this project, if we get it done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister will excuse me if I am somewhat skeptical
about the promise. Isn't it a fact that one of the reasons the deal was put on
the shelf, so to speak, from his ministerial statement, is because members of
the Board of Directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and members of his own
caucus were upset by the fact that Quebec and Hydro Quebec would chose who would
do the engineering work and that Newfoundland and Labrador would have no say in
it? Isn't that a fact, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This time, Mr. Speaker, I will try -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This time I will try to get it a little more accurate and correct. The hon.
member puts forward a proposition that is at least 180 degrees - if not 360
degrees - away from the truth and from the principles that we will have in a
deal when we do it. We are moving forward, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people
of the Province to try and get a good deal. I would remind the hon. member that
while I, as minister, announced - while as Inco announced last November, by way
of example, that we wanted to get the Voisey's Bay negotiations done by the
end of December if we could. We felt that was a reasonable objective. The fact
of the matter was, Mr. Speaker, that December 31 on the Voisey's negotiations
actually occurred on June 11 of the next year.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer, quickly.
MR. MATTHEWS: I say that to make this point, that we are not going to be
bamboozled or rushed or coerced or pressured by anybody into doing anything
unless we believe it is the right thing for the people of the Province and for
the development of the economy that we all will benefit from.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, isn't it a fact, I ask the minister, that while government and
he, himself, were maintaining that this project was going to be 100 per cent
owned by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that Hydro-Quebec and the Province of
Quebec were going to have equal say in terms of the distribution of jobs and
benefits. Isn't that, in fact, one of the reasons why government today -
because of pressure from the Liberal caucus, because of the resignations at
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, because of pressure from the Opposition, and
ultimately from fear of what the people would do to the Liberal Party of
Newfoundland and Labrador - that you are backtracking on the deal that you had
last week?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, to the contrary, we are not backtracking. We are not moving in
reverse. We are not at all looking in the rear-view mirror, as the people on the
other side so frequently and so - they do it so well, actually, Mr. Speaker. We
are moving forward, but we want to assure the people of the Province that, in
their interest, we are moving forward prudently, we are moving forward
cautiously, we are moving forward, taking into account all of the advice and all
of the best information we have available to us, and we are moving forward so
that at the end of this negotiation, if we are successful, not only we on this
side of the House, but, we believe, any fair and objective-minded Newfoundlander
and Labradorian, will conclude, when we get this done - if we get it done - that
we have just as good a proposition, and just as supportable a deal -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: - as we had when we announced the Voisey's Bay deal and
the White Rose deal, and as we had at the end of the conclusion of the
boundaries resolution between us and Nova Scotia. We want to (inaudible) on
behalf of the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we have yet to have the minister answer a
question. I will ask him another straightforward question: Isn't it a fact
that one of the reasons that the minister stood in his place today and went 150
degrees in the opposite direction of backtracking from the deal they had last
week is because people in this Province, and advisers to the government, said:
Be careful, because you are selling energy to a company like Hydro-Quebec for
forty-five years and they are also lending you the money to do the project. Isn't
it a fact that people warned the government that this was a very risky political
economic and social proposition?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The answer to the question is not yes; it is no. Let me clarify for the hon.
member in part why we need to advise the people of the Province periodically
where we are on these major developments. It is precisely for this reason, Mr.
Speaker: It is because people on the other side of the House spin a yarn, put
forward a proposition, lay out what they allege to be a statement of fact,
suggest that they have information and deals in front of them that, in fact,
they do not have, and cause the people of the Province to be misinformed, to be
misled, to cause the people of the Province to be put into a situation of
getting not even half the information but no information that, in fact, has been
put out by the government.
We have to operate so as to ensure that the people of the Province know what
our agenda is on their behalf and know what the political agenda is by the
people on the other side of the House who are interested primarily in one thing,
and that is, to find a way, after fourteen years, to wander back on this side of
the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the people of the Province and to the people on
the other side, keep waiting, be patient. You have been so far, and you will
still need more patience for the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just heard from the minister that they have all the information. They will
not give it to the people, and now we are ones at fault for trying to bring out
into the open a terrible deal that this government was about to do.
Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this question: Isn't it a fact that
one of the reasons you backtracked from the deal that you were proposing in the
last two weeks is that the cost of borrowing was going to be so high that what
we would have ended up paying back to Hydro-Quebec would have been way beyond
what would have been considered prudent financial management on behalf of the
government?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member and the people
of the Province that we are not, in any circumstance or by any standard of
measurement, backtracking at all. What we are doing is updating the people of
the Province that we are moving forward cautiously and prudently and carefully
so as to ensure that we get the best possible deal in their interest.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: We have no intention of rushing forward simply because
somebody might believe there is a political agenda or a political advantage for
us or somebody else to do this in a very quick fashion.
Last week, two weeks ago, as last November with the Voisey's deal, we felt
that probably we could move this agenda and this project forward a little more
quickly than, in reality, we have been able to do, but that, Mr. Speaker, is not
a condemnation of the process nor a condemnation of the concept -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. MATTHEWS: - nor a condemnation of the deal itself. It is simply
saying that we are going to take the time we need to do due diligence to every
aspect of this negotiation and this project so that, if and when we get it done,
we will be happy to bring it forward and we will be happy to debate it with the
people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A final supplementary. In the last two weeks in this House, members of the
Opposition have been called fear mongers, scare mongers; we are not proposing
the truth; the questions we are asking were not appropriate. In an effort to
clear all of that up, so the people of the Province can decide who was doing
what, in view of the fact that the minister has now moved back from his
statement, or the government have moved back from the deal, let me ask him this,
Mr. Speaker: Will he, on behalf of the government, table the documents that he
presented to his caucus, table the documents and the resolutions that he
presented to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, so that people of the Province can
decide who was on the up and up as it relates to the development of the Lower
Churchill?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that the members of the
Opposition have a very critical and a very important role to perform in our
democracy, in our parliamentary system. I want to remind them again, and I want
to ensure the people of the Province because I believe they understand, that
when you are negotiating a project, whether you are in the private sector to
private sector, whether it is government to government, whether it is government
to private sector, whatever, no negotiation of any magnitude, let alone one of
this magnitude, can be done in the public domain. Discussions have to be held
privately. They have be held in confidence. They have to be held in a fashion
where you can have good and hard negotiations take place so that when you get
your work done you can bring forward not all of the things that you discussed
when you went through it, not all of the working papers that you had around you,
not all of the documents that were put forward for review and that sort of thing
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer, quickly.
MR. MATTHEWS: - so that when you move a project forward to conclusion,
you bring forward one set of documents. It is called the final deal and that
everybody can see what it is, examine it for what it is and -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to take his seat.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are also for the Minister of Mines and Energy.
On Thursday the Leader of the Opposition asked the Premier about a report in
the National Post that the Prime Minister of Canada, in a meeting with
the Premier of Ontario, had raised the possibility of federal support to build a
transmission line to transport electricity to Ontario from a proposed new
hydroelectric development at Conawapa in Manitoba.
My question is: Is the minister aware that on Friday past the federal
Minister of Environment confirmed that Ottawa is examining the feasibility of
federal support in the amount of $1.4 billion to allow a transmission line to
get Conawapa power to Ontario?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the comments of the Prime Minister last week
with respect to the federal government's interest in a national energy grid
for electricity is most interesting. To some extent, I must confess, I am a
little curious about it because this issue of an energy grid for electricity to
go across this country freely and uninhibited - much like oil moves across the
country, much like natural gas moves - is something that for the last two years
I have been raising, and my colleagues at the provincial level have been
raising, with the federal minister over and over in federal/provincial ministers'
meetings. We have gotten zero level of interest expressed to us.
For many, many years the governments on this side of the House - previous to
Liberal administrations, PC administrations - have been trying to attract the
interest of the federal government on in-feed issues, on support for a project
that we might develop with an in-feed or even without an in-feed. We have gotten
zero level of support from the federal government.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer, quickly.
MR. MATTHEWS: All of a sudden, in the context of Kyoto, this becomes a
national issue. I am curious about it, and I am aware of the comments of the
Minister of Environment, the hon. David Anderson. As a matter of fact, I have
them here in front of me right out of the Winnipeg Free Press .
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer, quickly.
MR. MATTHEWS: I am more than interested to find out, through the Prime
Minister's Office, what the real interest is of the federal government in
terms of this megaproject on behalf of the people (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, in view of comments emanating from Ottawa,
has this government requested now today, up until today - in view of the
comments last week, Mr. Speaker, have we requested federal financial support to
transport power from Gull Island to Ontario or the Maritime Provinces or the
Northeastern United States or Labrador or the Island of Newfoundland?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could have added a few more "ors",
because I can tell you that we are interested and have been for many years, as a
people in this Province, in developing our hydroelectricity and selling it to
wherever we can get it to that gives us the best value for the product we have
to sell.
What I can say to the hon. member is this, that we have continuously raised
with the Prime Minister directly, with the federal government more generally,
over and over and over again, the concept of their support for the development
of our projects, and we have had zero level of interest expressed.
We hope, Mr. Speaker, that this latest statement by the Prime Minister does,
in fact, represent a change of position by the federal government in terms of
their support for mega hydroelectricity projects. We will soon see because we
are at the enquiry level at the officials level in Ottawa. I can tell the hon.
members, without saying more, that at the political level we are also raising
this issue for clarification and, hopefully, for finding out that, in fact,
there is something more now in terms of possibilities than there has been for
the last eight or ten or twelve or fifteen or twenty years, even, in terms of
the feds' position.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for. St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the same minister told the House of Commons
on Friday that Ottawa would look at any proposal from any province - he said any
province - or from any provincial hydro corporation for assistance to transport
electricity to markets.
I ask the hon. minister: How does that statement square with this Premier's
repeated claim that Ottawa is not interested in anyway in helping out with Gull
Island?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We, Mr. Speaker, cautiously but sincerely hope that the federal government
has, in fact, expressed, through the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Environment last week, a new approach and a new position with respect to their
interest in and probable and possible support for hydroelectricity developments
anywhere in Canada. Because, guess what, Mr. Speaker? If they have come to a new
position and if they have a new approach and if they are prepared to have
discussions that heretofore they have shutdown and dismissed out of hand, we
will be the first at the table, we will be the first in the door, we will be the
first to push on behalf of this Province our interest in terms of any new and
adjusted policy that they might now have as a matter of position.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.
Mr. Speaker, last week the Romanow Royal Commission released its final report
and acknowledged that there is a critical of nurses in this country, and that
each province needed to move quickly to ensure it didn't become a crisis.
I ask the minister: In light of that kind of environment, why is it that
health boards in this Province are still only offering graduates coming out next
spring, the 100 graduates, casual positions, when recruiters from across the
country are coming in here offering permanent, full-time jobs, much higher
paying than we are offering here in Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is nice to see that the hon. member has acknowledged the Romanow Report
and indeed, it is a good piece of work that has been done. It does, in a very,
very sincere and comprehensive way, put forward many issues that everyone in
this country is concerned about. The issue that the hon. member raises is one of
these. There is, in fact, a national study that was released just a short time
ago which references some of the issues, the broader issues, that the hon.
member has referenced.
In terms of the situation as it applies in this Province, in fact, I think
our record in terms of recruitment and retention of our health care providers,
including our nurses, is second to none.
In terms of what is happening with our various boards; again, I say to the
hon. member that the function of our health care boards is to operate as
autonomously as they can. He understands that. He was part of the system.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. SMITH: This minister and this government does not presume to
micromanage the health care system in this Province. But, quite frankly, I think
I have a little more respect for the CEOs and those people who are out making
those kinds of decisions on the ground and I do feel that they have this matter
in hand.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North, final supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, again, on the Romanow Report. In an interview with a local radio
station that was aired last night the Premier expressed optimism that the new
funding could be used to pay for such things as debt reduction of health boards
and negotiated salary increases for health practitioners, particularly
physicians. Considering that the Province's share of the $6.5 billion will
only be $115 million, that is when all of the recommendations are fully
implemented: Can the minister tell this House if this will be sufficient funding
to cover the costs of those two initiatives alone?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not know the remarks that the hon. member attributes to the Premier, I
never heard the interview, but I would assume his remarks were couched and the
point of view that - I think most jurisdictions in this country were hoping that
from the Romanow Report there would have been something there that would have
referred to the immediate situation as it pertains in the various jurisdictions,
including Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, everyone in this House has an
understanding of the amount of commitment that this government, at this point in
time, is making to the delivery of health care in this country. I would say to
him, in terms of his math, I would have to suggest to him that certainly at this
point in time I think it is a little bit premature. Romanow and his report does
not reference the fact - his recommendation is that any allocations be made on a
needs basis, strictly on a per capita.
The hon. member, I would suggest in terms of the math that he has done -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. SMITH: - is strictly on a per capita, and to this point in time we
are not sure - I hope it is not, but we are not sure at this point in time. That
is the way the matter is going to proceed.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is great to see that most of the debate which occupied the last three
sessions of the House of Assembly were dominated by Labrador issues, but those
of us who live in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, while we are interested in them, we
have other issues as well.
My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
In July of this year I issued a press release about communications along the
Trans-Labrador Highway. The minister responded the following week by stating
that he would address them. To date, no action from the minister. I want to ask
the minister, given the fact that communications on this highway could mean the
difference between life and death, and given the fact that this is a public
safety issue for which you are responsible, will you commission the coverage of
cellphone usage along the Trans-Labrador Highway for the users of that highway?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I agree with the hon. member, that communications along this highway is a
very, very important issue and it is an issue that we take very, very seriously.
For me to order that there would be cellphone use along the highway, that is not
within my jurisdiction. Cellphone coverage comes under the private companies,
and I guess we are not at liberty to order the companies to provide cellphone
coverage. If that was the case, I guess we would have all of Newfoundland and
Labrador covered. We do have instances on the Island similar to Labrador in
terms of long stretches of the highway where we do not have telephone service.
What I have done, under my control, is, we do have the ability to be able to put
satellite phones in strategic areas along that particular highway. I have
commissioned somebody in my department, we are negotiating with the satellite
companies, and I would anticipate we would be in a position pretty soon to
outline where we are going to install those phones on this particular highway.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador
West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister that battery operated phones and satellite phones have
a purpose but they are going to be a great distance apart, which still leaves
people stranded in emergency situations.
I say to the minister, we want a system where people have the ability to use
their cellphones so they can communicate wherever they are stranded, not
twenty-five kilometers from where they are.
Again, I ask the minister, given the fact that this is a public safety issue
- this is not a cellphone use for profit - that you must address -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly.
MR. COLLINS: - will you take your responsibilities seriously and address
that issue?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the hon. member. I think
there are two companies in this Province that provide cellphone coverage.
AN HON. MEMBER: Who are they?
MR. BARRETT: Rogers and, I think, NewTel.
AN HON. MEMBER: Cantel, the other one.
MR. BARRETT: Cantel, the other one.
I guess, from a point of view, they should look at - right now, what they are
doing is putting in cellphone coverage in terms of where it is economically
viable and where they make tremendous profits. I think these companies should be
required -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. BARRETT: - as part of their licence, to provide full coverage, to
take from the areas where they are making a lot of money and provide coverage to
areas where they cannot make any money. I think that should be part of the
contract with the CRTC and I think that all of us should lobby together. I am
with the hon. member in terms of that (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table copies of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Legal Aid Commission financial statements for the year
ended March 31, 2002.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of this
Province. I will read the petition, Mr. Speaker:
WHEREAS in 1998 the Province provided funding for four new multiple sclerosis
drug therapies, Betaseron, Avonex, Copaxone and Rebif, under the Newfoundland
and Labrador Prescription Drug Program; and
WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program only provides
medication coverage for seniors under the Senior Citizens' Drug Subsidy
Program and people on income support; and
WHEREAS these drugs can cost between $1,800 and $3,600 a month; and
WHEREAS all citizens in other Canadian provinces can receive assistance with
high cost MS drugs, using co-payment and sliding scale programs, not limited to
social assistance income levels; and
WHEREAS these drugs can significantly improve the quality of life for people
with multiple sclerosis;
WHEREFORE we the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to direct the
government to implement a co-payment or sliding scale program for Betaseron,
Avonex, Copaxone and Rebif so that people who do not qualify for assistance
under the existing programs can get financial assistance with these high cost
drugs, as in the case in other Canadian provinces.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, there are many people in this Province who suffer from MS,
people who need other expensive drugs or hormone replacement therapies, all
sorts, Alzheimer's and many others. This is the only Province in our country
that does not provide any assistance whatsoever for our citizens.
What really irritates us is not the fact that they will not provide service,
because they will - so this government cannot say it is too expensive because,
in the end, they will provide service - it is what they force people to do to
themselves first that really irritates me and upsets the people who have signed
this petition.
Mr. Speaker, if a person is working for a living, and has a drug plan that
they can claim these drugs under, then a lot of these drug plans have a maximum
lifetime cap. I think you can appreciate, with the cost of these drugs, that
does not take long to reach, leaving with them no coverage for any other illness
that they maybe afflicted by later on.
Mr. Speaker, the diseases that I have mentioned that these drugs are for,
they are not things that people brought on themselves. They are not brought on
because someone went out to abuse themselves, or any other reason. They
inherited these diseases, so they should get the assistance from this
government.
Every other jurisdiction in this country has a sliding scale or a co-payment
system of helping people who are afflicted by these diseases. I think it is a
sad reflection on this government when the hard-working people of this Province
have to ruin themselves financially by cashing in any RRSPs they may have, or
spending any money they may have put aside in their children's education fund,
by having to reduce themselves to income support levels before this government
will offer any assistance whatsoever. I think that it a deplorable situation and
I think it is one that this government should be addressing.
I noticed in the Romanow report, Mr. Speaker, that this problem is addressed
and that he says, to the provinces, that money should be provided for this, but
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this government does not wait -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: By leave, just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. COLLINS: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this government does not take the
position that on all of these issues now, that it is contained in the Romanow
report, therefore we are studying it and we will make our decisions later as to
what will or what will not be done.
I say to this government, it is important for the people of this Province
that they act immediately and provide assistance to the people who need these
high-priced drugs so that they do not have to destroy their lives before this
government will offer any assistance.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition to this House of Assembly, and the
petition is on behalf of members of the Retired Teachers Association of
Newfoundland and Labrador. If I may read the petition:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative
session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador;
WHEREAS retired teachers in this Province have made such a valuable
contribution to the education in this Province; and
WHEREAS retired teachers have not had any increase in their fixed income to
match ever-increasing costs of daily living since January 1989; and
WHEREAS the Retired Teachers Association believe a retired pensioner should
be able to maintain a standard of living close to that enjoyed at the time of
their retirement;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to initiate immediate action to review the current situation and reinstate
regular escalation, in the form of annual ad hoc increases, to retired teachers'
pensions.
Mr. Speaker, I bring this petition on behalf of the couple of hundred people,
retired teachers, who signed this petition, and others, and I bring it to the
attention of the House because their voices need to be hear. These retired
teachers, I do not have to tell you or this House the contribution they have
made. Looking down over the list, there are teachers, I am sure, who have taught
some of the members of this House; and, of course, there are members in this
House whose colleagues have retired. As a matter of fact, there are almost as
many teachers now retired as are active in teaching.
The Retired Teachers Association, at the last general meeting, I believe, in
November of 2002, put together a resolution that they have presented to the
Premier and to members of this House, and I assume that most of the members have
seen a copy of this. It is entitled: Losing the Race, and it is making the case
for regular increases and pension benefits to retired teachers.
I say, Mr. Speaker, up until 1989, there were increases on a yearly basis to
try and stay ahead of the rising cost of living, and these increases were able
to maintain, I guess, some standard very much comparable to the standard of
living which these teachers retired under.
Since 1989, for whatever reasons, the government of the day has decided that
these increases are not to be granted. What the retired teachers of Newfoundland
and Labrador would look to see is, for it to be addressed, that the situation be
looked at, and that the brief be taken into account.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HEDDERSON: If I might have a minute just to finish up?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just in finishing up, again, this is a legitimate petition presented in the
hope that the government of the day would look at the situation. We certainly do
not want to see retired teachers, certainly retired professionals of any group,
to be living in a situation where they are well below the poverty line as set
down in this particular Province. So again I urge the government to take this
under advisement, to look at the brief that has been presented, and to act on
behalf of the retired teachers of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr, Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition as well. The petition reads: To the hon.
House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened,
the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;
WHEREAS the government has requested the Board of Regents to consider a name
change of our University; and
WHEREAS Memorial University of Newfoundland is excluded under the
Newfoundland and Labrador Act; and
WHEREAS publicly funded universities can be named for a region of a province;
and
WHEREAS when other political entities changed, the name of the university
within it did not; and
WHEREAS our educational mandate is not limited to this Province; and
WHEREAS the University is on the Island of Newfoundland; and
WHEREAS the first university in other provinces did not reflect the entire
name of the province; and
WHEREAS there will be enormous costs to undergo this name change; and
WHEREAS there are enormous disadvantages to not having a geographic identity
attached to the University; and
WHEREAS another proposed university in this Province is more suitable to have
Labrador added to its name
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
to retain the current name, Memorial University of Newfoundland, as in duty
bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is a petition again with hundreds of names on it. As I was
looking through the names they are certainly not names from only one location.
I also would like to read what is printed on the top of each page where
people's names are signed underneath. It says: Petition to keep the name of
Memorial University of Newfoundland. It goes on to say: we, the undersigned,
disagree with the proposal to change the name of Memorial University of
Newfoundland. We believe the name should remain as it is in memorial to those
who served in WWI and WWII when Newfoundland was a colony and not a Province of
Canada. It should not be shortened to Memorial University or lengthened to
Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Many of those petitions, Mr. Speaker, are signed by people who are active
members of the Royal Canadian Legion throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The
petitions that I have presented here are representative of legion members from
places like Botwood, Bonavista South, Bonavista and other names right across the
Province.
My understanding is the name proposal that was brought forward is not
acceptable to some of those people. They would like to see the name of Memorial
University of Newfoundland left the way it is. They feel the enormous costs that
would be associated with making this name change, the money could certainly be
spent otherwise, when you consider the rise in tuition fees and the drop in
enrollment and the cost of getting an education today.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to members in the House that this is a petition signed by hundreds of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and I, too, will be adding my name to this
petition as I agree with the people who have put this petition forward.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from my district. It has been looked at by the
Clerk of the House. The petition is not in an order that is acceptable to the
House, so I would like to ask leave of my hon. colleagues to present this
petition on behalf of over 400 of my constituents.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS JONES: Yes, it is.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This petition is submitted by people from the South Coast of Labrador. I will
just read what the petition says. It is in support of the community of Williams
Harbour.
WHEREAS the community of Williams Harbour is currently not connected to the
Trans-Labrador Highway; and
WHEREAS it is essential to make any community economically viable, a
cost-effective transportation infrastructure system must be in place;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the undersigned are hereby petitioning
government to construct a road link to the Trans-Labrador Highway for the
community of Williams Harbour.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present this petition in the House of
Assembly today and to offer my support to the people in Williams Harbour, the
community of Williams Harbour and the surrounding communities, who are lobbying
government to have a road connection into that particular community.
Mr. Speaker, Williams Harbour, not unlike many of the communities in my
district, has been for many years a small and isolated outport that has had to
meet many challenges over the years, and those challenges, not only from an
economic prospective, but also from a social perspective.
In the last five years we have witnessed tremendous investment in highway
development in Labrador, primarily. We have seen well over $130 million invested
by government to allow the connection of communities like: Mary's Harbour,
Lodge Bay, St. Lewis, Port Hope Simpson, Charlottetown and Cartwright.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot stop there. Last year we made a decision to allocate
funds to do a road connection into the community of Pinsent Arm. That connection
will be finished in September of 2003. This positions Williams Harbour to be
just eighteen kilometres from the now constructed Trans-Labrador Highway system.
I do not think we can stop with our investments at this particular time. While
we continue to build the highway from Cartwright to Goose Bay, we also have to
continue to focus on connecting as many communities as we possibly can to this
very essential highway network.
Mr. Speaker, the people of this particular community have had to use the
services in Port Hope Simpson and Charlottetown, whether it came to hospital
services or other services, over many, many years.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS JONES: May I have leave just to clue up, please?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MS JONES: Thank you.
I think that we have reached a time in our history where we have to be able
to connect all communities in our Province where possible and where economical
to a highway connection. This is a community that allows us to be able to do
that on both fronts. So, I think we should give every consideration to the
request that has been put forward. I will certainly lobby very hard on my part,
as the MHA for this particular area, to ensure that this community is able to
avail of a proper transportation system and be serviced as a lot of outports
within our Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 14, second reading of a bill,
An Act To
Amend The Adoption Act. (Bill 14)
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Adoption
Act." (Bill 14)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise in this House today to bring forward -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SMITH: Yes, I am certainly prepared to move if the hon. members
opposite - because I think this is a piece of legislation that we all agree is
in order. Certainly, I know in the time that I have been with the department
there has been a considerable lobby right throughout the Province with regard to
bringing this forward.
Mr. Speaker, I guess just to put it in context, what we are, in fact, doing
here today is introducing a number of amendments for a very progressive piece of
legislation which was brought in a while ago. I guess in the process of
travelling the Province and informing and updating people who would be carrying
out and delivering this act, in briefing them, there were a number of issues
that came to light. The general consensus was - rather than just proceed with
proclaiming the legislation with some of the improvements that had been
recommended - that the proper thing to do would be to bring the amendments
before the House, have the amendments made to the legislation before it is
proclaimed and it does, indeed, become law in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, the amendments that are in there are - well, in the main they
may seem fairly straightforward. They are, in fact, very, very important. These
are things that, as I said, got overlooked in the original legislation. For
example, they include such things as the definition of a court - being the
Supreme Court of Newfoundland, the United Family Court, as well as Provincial
courts - as both levels of court deal with adoption applications in this
Province. On the surface it seems to be fairly straightforward. I think if we
look at it you could see where there could be, unless there were clarification,
the basis here for causing some problems as people move forward in this area.
There are a number of those there, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to go through
all of them in great detail. I am sure all hon. members who propose to speak in
this debate will reference them. I know that hon. members on both sides of the
House have been lobbied in recent days to have this brought forward. I had hoped
that we would have been able to deal with this piece of legislation at our
spring sitting but unfortunately, there was a lot of other business that took
precedent and as a result this piece remained on the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker, the one piece, as well, that I guess I should reference briefly
is as it relates to international adoptions because this is a piece in the area
of adoptions that in recent days has been very much in the news. It has been
prompted by one or two cases here in the Province of adoptive parents who have
expressed some difficulties with the way that international adoptions have
proceeded. The regulations as they exist in this country, and as they certainly
will now exist, because under these amendments we are making here we will now,
in fact, be able to deal with international adoptions and its right to its
conclusions ourselves, that we will put the necessary framework in place.
The concerns that are there are on two fronts. I know I have dealt with some
hon. members opposite in dealing with specifics from their own districts. One,
Mr. Speaker, is to try to make sure that the rights of everyone involved in
these adoptions are protected, keeping in mind that some of these countries
where adoptions are made, their laws - the controls and systems they have in
place are certainly a far cry from what we enjoy in this country. As a result,
we have, I think - it is on all of us that we certainly do not want to encourage
a situation whereby children are, by illegal means or otherwise, being taken
from rightful families in these countries and brought into this part of the
world.
The other concern, Mr. Speaker, as well, we do know of cases where adoptive
parents from this country, and indeed this Province, have been taken in by
people who have purported to be able to fast-track the process for them and,
after expending a considerable amount of money, they found themselves in a
situation where they have been no further along.
Mr. Speaker, I think we all have a great deal of empathy and respect for
people who bring themselves forward to be adoptive parents. I think their
motives are unquestioned and I certainly applaud, as I am sure all hon. members
do, those people who come forward out of a genuine love for children and who
want to make a real loving home for them. The unfortunate thing for us now in
this Province is that in recent years the number of children who are becoming
available for adoption within our own Province is very, very small, and that is
why, more and more, international adoptions are becoming more of an option that
is pursued. That, Mr. Speaker, is an important piece of this because it does put
in place now and will allow us to have the mechanism here in this Province,
because one of the difficulties that we have run into, to this point in time, is
that they have been forced to go through agencies outside of this Province
because we have not had the wherewithal here in order to deliver all aspects of
it.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good piece of legislation. I know everybody
who has had an opportunity to examine it - and it has been vetted widely
throughout the Province, certainly to people who work within the health and
community services system, our social workers and all of those who work in the
area of adoptions - recommend it highly. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think parents
generally are anxiously awaiting the proclamation of this piece of legislation.
It is long overdue and it is my pleasure today to introduce it here in the House
and to recommend to my colleagues a speedy passage of this very important piece
of legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In a press release on February 16, 1998, when the minister released the Green
Paper on Adoption, she stated that the Adoption Advisory Committee, after
reviewing the options for changing the current adoption legislation, believed
that the first responsibility in drafting legislation is to the child. However,
the adults involved are entitled to have their concerns handled with sensitivity
and understanding.
Mr. Speaker, there will always be people who feel their best interests are
not being served by any legislation that we bring in. I know people on all sides
of this issue. There are children out there who are looking for their birth
parents, and have been for a lot of years. There are parents who are looking for
their children, and have been for a lot of years. I know children who have been
in contact with their birth parents. Some have had good unions and some have not
been as fortunate. I know of adopted children who have absolutely no desire to
search for their birth parents, and they actually hope that the birth parents
will never look for them.
I know of a woman who was forced by her parents to give her child up for
adoption some thirty-five years ago. She is still looking for her child. To be
reunited with that child is one of her concerns, but the other concern is that
the father of that birth child died at a young age and he died with a disease
that could very well have been passed on to the child. Even though that it just
within the last thirty-five years, the post-adoption department has been
unsuccessful in tracking down that child who is presently basically, I suppose,
a walking time bomb and does not know. He was adopted by Americans when the base
was open, and they have been very unsuccessful in tracking him down. In bringing
in any new legislation or in amending any legislation, how do we choose whose
interests we serve?
There has been some representation made to me recently about people who have
adopted children in the past, and they are concerned about the retroactivity of
the openness legislation. Neither Bill 45 nor Bill 14 have done anything to
alleviate the concerns of the adoptive parents and they actually made
representation to the department and to the advisory committee. What they are
saying is that in 1993, in that particular act, or in the amendments that were
made in 1993, a child had a right to seek the birth mother or not. If the child
did not want to find the birth parents, they did not need to do anything, just
carry on with their lives, but they had the right to initiate.
The rights of the children in any legislation must remain paramount. The
choice at the present time, under the present legislation, is with the child who
has the best of both worlds because they are not precluded but they are not
forced to make any decisions. Bill 45 and Bill 14, the combination of both of
them, will see that even retroactively the child has to do a veto and a
no-contact representation. Some of the parents who adopted under the old law are
very concerned about that. They would like for it to go about as it is now and
let the child make the decision but not have to make a decision to veto or
no-contact.
Under the new act, we are told, and these parents were told, that the new act
would not be retroactive. It is retroactive and it affects the existing
legislation. Birth parents or even relatives have the right to seek any
information, and the only way for any of them to stop it is for the child to
file the veto and the no-contact form.
For a person who has gone through one of the most important decisions that
they will make in their lives, and that is to become adoptive parents, and to
have adopted under the old rules, now the rules are changed midstream and many
of them feel that their child has been put in a pressure cooker. The rights now
go with the birth parents and relatives.
One of the other things that I would like to discuss is that under existing
or new legislation, nowhere is it mandatory for birth parents to give all
medical information that pertains to them. One of the suggestions that has been
made to me, particularly in light of the woman who gave her child up for
adoption thirty-five years ago and then, in the interim, the child's father
became very sick and did, in fact, die, and this could be passed on, that would
certainly underpin and certainly emphasize the need for it to be mandatory for
birth parents to give any medical information, not only any medical information
that would be pertinent at the time but that forms should possibly be sent out
to them or they should be mandated, probably every year or every couple of
years, to update any new medical information that could arise that would have
any effect on the child that they gave up for adoption.
Persons who are already adoptive parents have made representation to me. What
they are saying is, under the present legislation, adoptions that are ordered in
Newfoundland and Labrador, as in all other provinces, are only possible with the
informed consent of the birth parents. Birth parents do go through
consultations, they are consulted as to other alternatives to giving their child
up for adoption at the time. In all circumstances, a birth parent is full
informed of all available options, including the option of receiving financial
support from government and raising a child as a single parent. That is
presently given to them.
An adoption order takes away the legal rights from the natural parent,
guardian or person in whose custody the adopted child has been, and it frees
that person from legal obligations and duties with respect to the child. It
makes the adopted child, for all purposes, the child of the adopting parents,
and that is legally, morally, emotionally and everything. It imposes upon the
adopting parent legal obligations and duties as if the adopting parent were the
natural parent of the child from the date of the adoption order. The adopted
child shall, unless otherwise ordered by the judge, receive the surname of the
adopting parent.
Under the provisions as well, copies of birth certificates and/or adoption
orders would be made available to adoptive parents or the adopted person. An
adopted person who is nineteen years of age or older may request the release of
information contained in his or her file and for information about other parties
to the adoption. For instance, the child may seek information or can say that
they will have information released to the birth parents.
The act provides that the minister, upon receiving such a request, will
release non-identifying information and would release identifying information
with the consent of the birth parents. The adopted person has the right to seek
contact, again with the consent of the birth parents. Equally, if an adopted
person chooses to maintain his or her privacy and not seek or disclose
identifying information or have contact with the birth parent, that also is that
person's right under the existing legislation.
While the provision for openness clearly exists, it is in the hands of the
adopted person to decide whether or not to seek such disclosure or contact and
at what period of their adult lives they do want to pursue it. So, presently the
adoptee has the right to either seek or not to seek. They also don't have to
make that decision at any certain age. For instance, under the new legislation
the adoptee would have to file a veto at eighteen years of age.
The representation that has been made to me on behalf of these parents, and
some of their concerns, is that the new legislation fails to respect the rights
of parties to legally-ordered adoptions under existing legislation. Their
biggest concern is, it would retroactively remove and adversely impact the
existing legislated rights of adopted persons and adoptive parents.
This is quite emotional for them. To make a decision to adopt a child is
probably the most important thing that you will do in your life. When these
parents made that decision, ten, fifteen, five, seven years ago, they made the
decision under the existing legislation, and now they are contending that the
rules of the game have changed for them partway through. They figure that it is
going to result in undue hardship to adopted persons and the adoptive parents.
The veto mechanisms will put young adopted persons, eighteen years of age, on
the defensive, forcing them to file vetoes to avoid release of personal
identifying information about themselves and their adoptive families without
their consent, and to avoid unwanted and unsolicited contact by birth parents or
relatives of birth parents.
What these parents are contending is that it is creating a very pressured
situation and could easily result in emotional harm to young adopted persons who
have to make that decision at a very specified time in their lives, rather than
having the latitude, at whatever age of their adult life they are, to make the
decision at that time.
In a conversation with two adoptive parents a few months ago, the director
spoke on how difficult a disclosure contact decision can be, even for adopted
persons who are forty years of age. Basically, this is what these adoptive
parents are saying, that if the adoptee could choose at what point in their
lives to make the decision, whether or not to contact, then it would alleviate
the pressure, but to put the onus on the adoptee to make that decision when they
are eighteen years of age is putting undue emotional harm on them.
The new legislation fails to honour commitments to parties who have adopted
under the current legislation. The legislation fails to differentiate between
adoptions ordered under existing legislation and adoptions in the future. These
people are not questioning the fact that these laws will be in for people who
adopt on a go-forward basis, but they are contending that they negatively impact
the people who did adopt before this legislation came in place and does affect
them retroactively. The legislation fails to distinguish between adoptions of
infants and older children. In the areas of disclosure and contact, the
legislation is out of line with virtually every provincial jurisdiction in
Canada.
I would like to talk about the adoption legislation in some other provinces,
and make some comparative provisions. In Prince Edward Island, the legislation
and the amendments were brought in, in 1993, and that compares more closely with
existing legislation in this Province. It respects privacy and the rights of the
adopted persons and the adoptive parents, re: disclosure of identifying
information and contact, but it is permissive where the adult adoptee initiates
and the birth parents consent. That is much the same as is happening now in our
Province.
In New Brunswick, legislation was brought in between 1997 and 2000. It also
compares more closely with existing legislation in this Province. It respects
privacy and rights of adopted persons and adoptive parents, re: the disclosing
of identifying information and contact. It is permissive where an adult adoptee
has registered a wish to contact the birth parents and siblings, and other
persons have voluntarily registered a willingness to be contacted.
In 1996, Nova Scotia legislation was brought in, and the existing act
resembles closely the existing legislation in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador, re: the disclosure of identifying information and contact, and is only
permitted with the written consent of the parties.
In November, 1999, a new Adoption Act was tabled in Nova Scotia, and this is
interesting. That tabled act contained more openness provisions and it
incorporated disclosure veto and no contact declaration mechanisms. There was
strong negative reaction to the provisions and the legislation was not enacted.
At that time, when that legislation was not enacted, there was a ministerial
advisory committee established and a public consultation process provided for
discussion of potential impacts with all affected parties. They brought in
unanimous recommendations, and these recommendations were: that proposed new
rules governing adoption would apply only to adoptions in the future - this is
what the present adoptive parents in our Province are saying - and that any
amendment to the legislation show consideration for persons who may not wish
disclosure or contact with respect to adoptions made prior to the enactment of
the proposed amendments. That legislation is still under review.
In 1997, Quebec brought in legislation that more closely compared with
existing legislation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador re: disclosure
of identifying information and contact. Adopted persons may initiate the
request; birth parent must consent. Disclosure to birth parents only if the
adult adoptee has consented, and consent may not be solicited.
In Ontario - interestingly enough, the people who made representation to me
were speaking with the Director of Child Welfare at the time and the Child
Welfare said that our new legislation would closely resemble Ontario's. In
Ontario, the legislation compares more closely with the legislation in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It respects privacy and rights of adopted
persons and adoptive parents re: disclosure and contact. The Adoption Disclosure
Register permits adopted persons and the birth parent, birth sibling, to
register if they wish disclosure and contact. They do not have to veto it.
Disclosure and contact is only where both have registered. The adult adoptee may
initiate a search for the birth parent, if not registered, but the consent of
the birth parent is still required. A birth relative may not initiate a search
for an adult adoptee.
Manitoba's legislation, which was brought in, in 1999, is permissive with
respect to openness in adoptions but respects the privacy and rights of adopted
person and adoptive parents, thereby differing materially from the proposed
Newfoundland and Labrador legislation re: disclosure and contact. It
distinguishes between adoptions under previous and new legislation.
Once again, I emphasize the importance of go-forward on new adoptions as
compared to retroactive, which will affect people who made a decision to adopt
before this new legislation.
There is de facto grandfathering of rights of adoptive families who adopted
under the previous legislation. Veto mechanisms are available to adoptive
parents. Previous legislation adoptions - disclosure and contact only if both
parties are registered in a post-adoption registry. Veto mechanisms are
available, but no disclosure or contact unless. Vetoes are applicable to
previous and future adoptions and they extend beyond death. Our new legislation
will provide for a year after death.
The Saskatchewan legislation was brought in, in1998. Since 1995, provision
for more open adoptions to take place. However, provisions governing adoption
vary significantly from the proposed Newfoundland and Labrador legislation.
There are some statements by government officials in Saskatchewan, "We don't
order people through the law to be open. We recognize an open adoption is not
for everyone; if someone wants a closed adoption, it would be accepted."
Re: disclosure and contact, the act distinguishes between past and future
adoptions. The act does not require adoptees to file access or contact vetoes.
Once again, this is the point of contention: the fact that the adoptees have to
file as opposed to filing only when they feel they are ready. Disclosure and
contact are permitted only where adult adoptees and birth parents both consent.
Legislation brought in 2000/2002 in Alberta: Since 2000, Alberta has made
provision for more open adoptions but, like Saskatchewan, the provisions
governing adoption vary significantly from the approach being proposed in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Re: disclosure and contact, the new act differentiates between past and
future adoptions. Re: disclosure and contact as well, adoptive families
including adult adopted person are not forced to file vetoes to avoid disclosure
or contact. Rather, they are given the opportunity to seek disclosure and/or
contact if desired. That is a very, very important part of this legislation.
There is no disclosure or contact without prior consent. The veto mechanism is
also available to all parties who wish to register a no-disclosure/no-contact
position, and it applies to previous and new legislation. Once again, in
providing to the previous legislation, nobody is forced to file a veto to avoid
disclosure or contact.
In British Columbia legislation that was brought in between 1996 and 2000:
The provisions of this act are, in some respects, more comparable to those
contained in the proposed Newfoundland and Labrador legislation. However, many
provisions in the proposed Newfoundland and Labrador act go far beyond even the
B.C. act governing adoptions.
The people who made contact with me and who have asked me to bring their
voice to this hon. House have provided some solutions. They have no difficulty
with government trying to respond to the request for openness, but they
"...question to what extent this relates to an administrative problem as
opposed to a legislative requirement." They, "...also question why
this has any relevance to the changes in the legislation which would adversely
impact the existing rights of adoptive parents and the rights of adoptive
children."
"Government is concerned that not all adopted persons have always been
told of their adopted status."
"To this concern..." they say, "...in the vast majority of
adoptions in more recent years (10-15 years) this has not been the case. It may
have been more of an issue a generation ago." Senior departmental officials
also agree with this. "It is not an acceptable reason to retroactively
remove legislated rights of parties to adoption under existing
legislation." Basically, what government is proposing to do is remove the
rights, retroactively, to contracts that these people made before this new
legislation came in.
They are questioning "...whether government would intend to contact all
existing adoptees to inform them of their status or how the provisions of the
proposed legislation would address this stated concern."
They are asking that legislation be introduced "...which recognizes some
of the changing conditions affecting adoption (eg. adoptions of older children,
increasing requests for international adoption, etc.)." But, "...there
is no need and no legitimate reason to retroactively remove or alter the
legislated rights of parties to existing adoptions. In this respect the proposed
legislation is out of step with virtually every jurisdiction in Canada."
And that includes the jurisdiction of British Columbia where it has been working
pretty well, but the Newfoundland and Labrador proposed legislation goes far
beyond that.
There was an ad in the paper concerning adoptions and that ad was placed by
the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, by the Department of Health and
Community Services, when the present Premier was then the minister of that
department. It says, "Adoptions - Bringing Families Together. Modern and
Open Approach. Did you know we are updating our adoptions legislation in the
province? Our present legislation is fifty years old, and people in Newfoundland
and Labrador have been asking for changes to our policies and law. That's why
we introduced a new Adoption Act in the House of Assembly last fall." That
would be the fall of 1999. "The new Act, which will come into effect in
about a year..." - the act has been passed but it has not been proclaimed
as yet, and now we have some amendments to the act - "...will allow some
children to maintain contact with their birth family following adoption. Among
other things, it will allow direct placement of infants with adoptive
parents...", who have been chosen by the birth parents and that, of course,
must be approved by the director. "There will also be an easier process for
relative/step parent adoptions...". But the key part of this is, "But
don't worry, we'll respect the confidentiality of adoptions occurring prior
to the new Act being in place."
So, government basically promised people who had adopted children, prior to
the new act being put in place, that the confidentiality would be respected.
This is where those people are coming from. "And, as always, the best
interests of children will remain our focus." As I said, the people who had
made the very, very emotional and very important decision to adopt children
prior to the new act coming in, did make representation to the minister and were
told that the confidentiality of children adopted prior to the new act would be
respected.
There are some other issues in the act. With respect to the duties of the
director and the adoption agency, the present act charges the director and the
adoption agency with the responsibility to make sure that the child, if
sufficiently mature, has been counselled on the effects of adoption. This bill,
however, replaces the reference to sufficiently mature, which is in the old act,
with the requirement that a child five years of age or older be counselled on
the effect of the adoption.
With respect to direct placement, the requirement of the director to ensure a
child of sufficient maturity is counselled on the effects of adoption is changed
by this bill to ensure that a child five years or older be counselled on the
effect of adoption.
Furthermore, specific references in
section 15 of the present act to the
ability of the birth mother who has given consent for the adoption to revoke
that consent within twenty-eight days, even if the child has been placed by the
director, has been removed by this bill. The bill permits the director of child,
youth and family services to approve revocation of consent after the twenty-one
day period where the child has not been placed with the prospective adoptive
parents, an application to the court is not required.
I did have representation from a couple who had applied for adoption here in
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They had been given a child, and it
was a new baby. That child was brought to them from the hospital. This was
within the past couple of years. After they had the child in their house for a
couple of weeks or close to a month, the birth mother changed her mind. The
social worker called the adopting parents and told them that the mother had
changed her mind. Of course, the adoptive parents were devastated, but they were
even more devastated when the social worker said to them: The birth mother
cannot get into town until after the weekend, would you mind taking care of the
baby until the birth mother gets into town? They were totally, completely
devastated. So, I would like to see some provision in the act to prevent
anything like this happening, because as well as being sensitive to the
children, we have to, as well, be sensitive to the adoptive parents who are
making a very, very important and very emotional decision which will affect
their lives and the life of the child or children whom they adopt.
With respect to the court to effect a name change, this bill changes the act
to lower the age from seven to five, at which time the child's views are to be
considered. Somebody who was a birth mother and their child was in a foster home
made representation to me also within the past year. The foster mother had
changed the name of the child; the name the birth mother had given the child.
The foster mother had not even adopted the child. The child may or may not have
been in a position to be placed for adoption. The birth mother had absolutely no
idea that her child's name was changed until the social worker started to
discuss the baby and was using a different name than the birth mother had given.
It was at that point that the birth mother realized that this foster parent had
gone and changed the name of this baby to a name other than was given by the
birth parent. That, of course, should never be allowed to happen.
This bill also allows for greater post-adoption openness. Under the present
act, the adoptive parent of a child and a birth relative of that child or an
adoptive parent of a child and an adoptive parent of a birth sibling of that
child could "...register with a director to indicate their interest in
making an openness agreement." This bill also allows another person who has
established a relationship with a child to register with the director.
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no problem with children being able to seek
out their birth parents. What I am saying here is that by making it retroactive,
we are basically trampling on the rights of people who adopted children under
the old legislation to find partway through the game to have a child in their
house and now new rules are being imposed. Whether they would have decided to
adopt under the new legislation, well, that is for them to decide but, at least,
this legislation should not be changed for them. The rules of the game should
not be changed for them partway through the process; rules that affect both them
and, most importantly, affect their child and put the onus, put the pressure on
their child to apply to the director not to be found as opposed to letting the
status quo remain and let that child, at whatever point in their adult life -
whether it is eighteen, nineteen, twenty-five or forty years of age. When that
adoptee is ready to seek or not to seek its birth parents, the child should be
able to make that decision.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for the
opportunity to say a few words about this particular piece of legislation. I
think this is, obviously, a very important piece of legislation. It has been
well discussed, and as the minister indicated, introduced some time ago and
finally getting down with the recommendations for the amendments to the
legislation before implementation.
I just have a few points that I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, about the
legislation itself. I guess some of these comments could possibly be reserved
for third reading but I raise them now because they are something, I think, when
we are talking about amendments particularly - the legislation has been
introduced earlier - these are some refinements and some amendments that we are
making to fine tune the legislation, and it is in that spirit that I raise them
now in second reading.
I am referring particularly to the clause here, the provision here, to ensure
that children who are being adopted, who are over the age of five years of age -
I am referring particularly to
section 18 of the legislation, where it talks
about ensuring that children who are between the ages of five and twelve have
had an opportunity to be consulted. They have received some counselling, they
fully understand the implications of the adoption process.
I think I understand the spirit of having this provision in the legislation:
to ensure that children have the ability to fully understand. I can appreciate
why the minister would want to select an age of between five and twelve as an
age where a child may have some level of understanding of the issue, may have
some level of understanding around what is happening with them at that
particular point, but I wonder, Mr. Speaker, around the merits of ensuring that
we have put it in the legislation. What challenges does it open us up to? It is
a very subjective provision. If the director is going to ask an individual to
sit with a child who is five or six years of age and determine, number one: Does
the child have the capacity to understand the issue? Does the child have the
understanding and the capacity to ask questions, to fully appreciate the
significance of this decision and the implication of this decision?
Not that you are asking for consent, Mr. Speaker, but you are wanting to
ensure that the child has a full and good understanding of the issue, and I
question whether or not a child who is of the age of five years has the capacity
to understand such a very complex and significant issue in their lives. For that
reason I was wondering about the significance of having such a piece of
legislation or having such a provision in such a significant piece of
legislation.
The other issue I raise, Mr. Speaker, is found a little later in the
legislation in
section 18. If I understand this particular provision, and the
way it is written, if you have a parent who decides today to place their child
up for adoption, and decides also that they would like to have their information
concealed - they have signed the veto, they do not want any information
disclosed, they would like that file sealed and never to be released - and they
have made that decision, well informed, fully understanding the implications,
fully understanding the consequence, but consciously made the decision that they
do not want that information released, according to this provision here, as I
read it, then one year after that person dies, up until their death and one year
after they die, that information remains sealed. If I read this provision here
correctly, after one year that information becomes open and public.
I ask, Mr. Speaker: Is it reasonable to have an individual who has decided
today that their information will never be released - and as long as they stay
alive it will never be released - they have the ability to, in fact, make that
conscious decision, but after they have been dead for one year it can no longer
be sealed. It will be automatically released, against the wishes of that
individual.
Now, I suspect many would argue that circumstance could change. Maybe new
information could surface. Maybe there is some critical information with respect
to their child's health or safety, and some of the answers to some of the
questions may be held in that parent's file, and it may be important to have
that file reopened; but I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, is there some
potential for conflict here on what might be the resolution? If this same
individual were to die today, and have a will that gave very clear direction to
their executors as to how their affairs may be dealt with, how issues may be
disposed of, and very clearly the executor has to, in fact, carry out the wishes
of their deceased client, one of those wishes may be to honour all obligations
and commitments and contracts. It may, in fact, have a wish to conceal all
information with respect to their past life, their health, issues around their
adoption or placing their child up for adoption. I ask, what might be the
conflict here, Mr. Speaker? I ask the minister if he would give some
reconsideration or have some answers for this particular issue when we get to
the Committee stage of debate around this particular point, because I think it
is important, given the sensitivity of this issue, given how important and how
much time - there has been a significant amount of time put into developing this
legislation.
We heard the minister comment earlier around its introduction in 1999 and the
subsequent consultation that has taken place, and the input that has been
solicited and provided to government in putting together these amendments that
we are dealing with here today. So, obviously, it is a significant piece of
legislation. It requires a lot of thoughtful consideration. It would be a crime,
I think, to proceed without dealing with some of those very significant legal
issues that could place either the child who has been adopted, or the adopting
parents, at some future challenge in the courts or in some compromising position
where they have conflict between this piece of legislation and what might be
other legislative powers or authority given, I use as an example, through an
executor in the event of carrying out the wishes of a deceased natural parent.
I raise these points at this particular time in the debate to ensure that the
minister may have an opportunity to research, to have his staff have a look at
the issue and provide some response, a more detailed response, as we get to the
Committee stage.
One of the other things that this issue raises, and I raise it here now
because it is an important point, I believe, when we start talking about
disclosing information about either the parents or the child's past health,
and who has access to what information. Around this particular point in
particular, Mr. Speaker, let's use this as an example: Someone today decides
to place their child up for adoption, and some time between now and when that
person were to die, a year after that, their health information becomes now
quite open. It is available to the adoptive parents. When you start thinking
about those kinds of questions, it raises the whole issue of privacy of
information. Who owns the information? Who should consent to its release? Who
has access to it, and what legislation protects that?
Last year, we sat in this House and we debated at length - after making many
amendments - the Freedom of Information Act. A lot of discussion was held around
access to information, who should have it, when they should have it, how they
should get it, and how they should appeal, should that access be denied by
government or a government agency or department. We did not, however, spend a
whole lot of time talking about privacy and protection of people's rights. Who
should have information, who should have access to it, and when they should have
access to it.
I think this is an example here, Mr. Speaker, where we are introducing a
piece of legislation where we are talking about access to information. At the
time, in talking about the freedom of information, I posed a question to the
Attorney General around this very particular point about privacy. Where was the
privacy piece of the freedom of information legislation? If recall correctly at
the time, his response was that we will deal with one piece at a time. This is
the freedom of information; the privacy piece will be dealt with down the road.
To ensure there was some degree of public confidence in ensuring that health
information, in particular, was secured, within that Freedom of Information Act
there is an exclusion that deals with health information, health boards and
health agencies. I have to question here, Mr. Speaker, whether or not, through
this particular piece of legislation here, we are trying to provide access to
health information or personal information about an adopted child, or the
parents, or the parent or mother of an adopted child, in a manner different than
we had intended to do it under the freedom of information.
Again, this is an issue that I ask the minister, and suggest to the minister,
that when we come back for some discussion in Committee, and some debate, if he
would have some preparation and be able to provide some comment for this House
on that particular issue around the protection and the privacy of this
information: who should have it, when, and under what conditions, and who should
store it, and whether or not it is stored electronically.
A little later we are going to be debating in this House some legislation
dealing with the Centre for Health Information and their ability, through that
legislation, giving them the authority to have access to other information in
the system through hospitals, through clinics, and giving the legislative
authority to many other agencies to electronically transmit information to the
Centre for Health Information, information that also identifies the patient
involved.
This is an issue here, Mr. Speaker, where we need to ensure that we are not
trying to introduce a separate piece of legislation here without giving the
privacy of the information the adequate protection that may exist under some
other piece of legislation.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude, but I would ask the minister to be in a
position to respond to some of those points I have just raised, when we get to
Committee stage of the debate on this very important piece of legislation that
is long overdue and long-awaited by many of the families in this Province.
So, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this very
important piece of legislation before the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BETTNEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure for me to have an opportunity to speak in favour of this
very long-awaited and significant piece of legislation.
As the minister has indicated in his introduction, there has been a
considerable amount of consultation and work that has gone into refining what is
a very complex area and one that is certainly very delicate for all the people
who are involved in this. It has taken years for, I know, the officials in the
Department of Health and Community Services to work through this process in a
way that could respond to the very real concerns that individuals on all sides
of this issue have, and particularly to be able to bring our adoptions
legislation in line with our other legislation, particularly the Child, Youth
and Family Services Act.
I think we have all understood in recent years, with the introduction of the
Child, Youth and Family Services Act, that it is in the best interests of the
child that we wish to align all of our legislation for the future. Mr. Speaker,
we recognize the ultimate importance of child development and of the youth of
our Province. Therefore, we want to ensure that any legislation that affects
them certainly puts children and their interests at the centre of this
legislation.
We believe that these amendments which are being introduced in Bill 14 bring
the Adoption Act in line with the Child, Youth and Family Services Act,
particularly on this principle of serving the child's best interests. It is
consistent with what we intend there.
Mr. Speaker, you see this in a couple of areas in the legislation. In
section
3 it indicates that, "This Act shall be construed so as to provide for new
and permanent family ties through adoption while, in every respect, giving
paramount consideration to the best interests of the child." That
section
goes on to further delineate what that means. What does it means when we are
talking about the best interests of a child? Of course, we are talking about the
child's safety, we are talking about their developmental needs, but it also
goes on to define such things as the child's cultural heritage, the quality of
the relationship the child has with a birth parent or with another individual,
the effect of maintaining that relationship, the importance of stability and
continuity in the child's care. Of course, we all recognize that all of these
factors are, in fact, very, very important and ones that you would want to have
taken into consideration if, in fact, we want to act in the best interests of
the child.
I think it is significant that in this legislation, as well, there are many
sections where it indicates that we will, through these amendments, consult with
children even as early as the age of five. I think, when you see in
section 7 we
are going to say that before a child is placed for an adoption, a director or an
agency shall make sure that if, the child is five years of age or older, they
have been counselled on the effect of adoption.
I believe that, yes, even a child as young as five years of age needs to know
what is happening with respect to their future, and needs to understand some of
the things that means for their general relationships, and perhaps needs to have
counselling about this to ensure that it is a smooth transition and that their
development is not going to be in any way inhibited by this action.
Certainly, when you look at children who are twelve years of age or older, I
think it is very appropriate and very timely that we put in a provision that
ensures that the child has given his or her consent to the adoption. This is,
yes, giving and putting an onus of understanding what is a