Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 17 November 1997 (43rd General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLIII No. 31)
1997-11-17
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November
17, 1997
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIII No. 31
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I understand that before we move
to Statements by Ministers, the Premier wishes to pay tribute to an outstanding
citizen of this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Premier have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I
want to thank the members opposite for giving me leave.
Today, I rise in the House to pay tribute, Mr. Speaker, to
one of the most colourful and most effective politicians who have ever served
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and may I say as well, that the hon.
Jack Pickersgill was one of the most social- minded people in public life ever
to serve this Province.
Mr. Pickersgill, together with the hon. Joseph R. Smallwood,
worked to bring the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador into the country we
proudly call our own - Canada.
Mr. Pickersgill was born at Wyecombe, Ontario in 1905 and
became one of our Provinces most prominent adopted sons. Just as we adopted
Canada with great enthusiasm and passion so, too, did Jack Pickersgill adopt us.
He served this Province as the Member of Parliament for
Bonavista-Twillingate from 1953 to 1967 and as Newfoundland and Labrador's
representative in the federal Cabinets of four Prime Ministers.
One of Mr. Pickersgill's most outstanding achievements was
the development of an employment insurance program for fishermen. And I want to
quote Mr. Pickersgill: "Of all the things I have done," - and indeed his
achievements were legion - he once said, `what mattered the most was my
connection to Newfoundland," and he referred with great pride to his ability to
have found a way to have given fishermen, seasonal workers, unemployment
insurance.
Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for all the members of this
House, and indeed, for all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, when I
extend our deepest thanks, appreciation, for a public life which contributed so
much to this Province and I extend, as well, our sympathy to his wife Margaret,
and to his children, Peter, Allan, Ruth and Jane of Glovertown.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, join with the Premier in certainly paying tribute to
an individual who has devoted a considerable portion of his life to serving
people here in this Province, and certainly we send our deepest regrets to the
family of the late Mr. Pickersgill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to join with the Premier and the Leader of the
Opposition in paying tribute to the efforts of Jack Pickersgill. As
representative of Newfoundland in the federal Cabinet, he was very effective. We
Newfoundlanders have always needed good and effective friends in Ottawa and Jack
Pickersgill certainly played a significant role in the development of the
Province.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, that we were making the same progress
these days, in terms of meeting national standards for income and quality of
life that we were meeting in the days of Jack Pickersgill. Condolences are
offered, of course, to his family. His son Allan was a schoolmate of mine at
University here in Newfoundland. The family, of course, will be having their own
remembrance of Mr. Pickersgill but he should also be well remembered by all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand before
my hon. colleagues here on opening day to put forward the government's program
for the sitting of the House of Assembly. We have a full and important slate of
issues to deal with and I want to assure the hon. members that the House will be
open on a regular basis to address those matters. There will be ample time for
debate of the issues and I am sure there will be lively and productive
discussion on all matters.
Mr. Speaker, this government has shown great flexibility in
opening the Legislature to deal with important issues. I want to assure the
House today that when Term 17 -
MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible). The House Leader is having
(inaudible), Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, this government has always shown
great flexibility in opening the Legislature to deal with important issues. I
want to assure the House today that when Term 17 is passed by the Federal
Government we will ensure that the new Schools Act is passed in a timely fashion
so it may be implemented for the new school year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: I would like to take a few moments, Mr.
Speaker, to highlight some of the bills which will be introduced in this
sitting. We will introduce a number of important bills regarding justice issues.
A bill to amend the Human Rights Code to prohibit sexual orientation as a
grounds for discrimination will also be introduced. We will also seek to amend
the Family Law Act, which will allow us to create provincial child support
guidelines consistent with the federal guidelines implemented earlier this year.
Further legislation will permit the appointment of an additional judge to the
Unified Family Court.
Mr. Speaker, a substantial number of bills having to do with
the financial affairs of the Province will also be brought forward. Among those
are bills which deal with the Public Service Pension Plan and Memorial
University Pension Plan. In addition, important measures such as amendments to
the Income Tax Act which will provide a tax credit for lower income individuals
will be addressed. This action was announced in the Budget and it is hoped we
may deal with this issue in a timely fashion so as to have credit cheques in the
mail before Christmas.
We will also deal with several important pieces of health
legislation, among which is a bill that will allow nurse practitioners to
perform their duties and another which will permit the transfer of community
service functions from the Department of Human Resources and Employment to the
community health boards.
From the Department of Environment and Labour, we will
introduce legislation to deal with the recommendations of the Morgan Cooper
report and outline an appropriate labour relations regime for the offshore oil
industry. In addition, we will seek amendments to the Shops' Closing Act.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has
committed $340 million for the Labrador Transportation Initiative. We intend to
introduce legislation that will establish a trust fund to receive these federal
monies and which will ensure funds are available for this fiscal year.
In the area of Fisheries and Aquaculture, we will present an
amendment to the Professional Fish Harvesters Act which will ensure that
individuals connected to the industry have the right to be heard regarding
decisions of the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board.
As always, Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to the
protection of the environment for future generations. That is why we shall
introduce amendments to the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act to provide
for provisional reserves and give authority to enforce the Act.
A number of bills have originated from the Department of
Government Services and Lands, one of which will give electronically filed
information the same legal authority as information filed on paper.
Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the bills which we
intend to address during this sitting of the House of Assembly. In fact, we hope
to give Notice of Motion on many of these bills today and with the concurrence
of members opposite, we will do first reading. We hope to deal with the business
of the House in an expeditious fashion and to fully debate these issues in a
productive manner for eventual passage.
Mr. Speaker, esteemed colleagues, I look forward to this
sitting of the House of Assembly, and I am ready to get down to business at
hand. Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr, Speaker. I'm very pleased
to be able to welcome the members back. We have been awaiting their arrival for
some weeks. We expected them to be here by mid-October. We are pleased to see
them back, but when I look at what the House Leader on the government side has
put forward here today, I look for things to address the real issues.
Out-migration. I want to see what you are doing to municipalities. We talk about
an ecological reserve. I want to tell the House that if you are living outside
the overpass that all outside the overpass falls into the category of endangered
species.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to you, we
came here to address the real issues. What is happening out in school board
number five with the pending lay off of another seventy-five teachers? We want
to know the real things, the real issues. Where are the jobs? We want to know
when the promise of a better tomorrow is going to arrive for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. We hear the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in
Gander, carried in yesterday's paper, saying to people: Boy, if you think things
have been tough, they are going to get tougher. That is what we are coming here
to now. We are coming here now to make things tougher for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
That is what we have here today. If this is all you can
offer, then I tell you, you haven't been doing much homework over the last six
months. Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill -
Quidi Vidi have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the opening
of the House. It allows us to debate the important issues of the day, and it
certainly also allows candidates for the leadership of the Progressive
Conservative Party to show their stuff, so we should have a very vigorous
session of the House. Mr. Speaker -
AN HON. MEMBER: You showed your stuff (inaudible)!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, what is absent from the
legislative agenda in the speech from the Government House Leader is the
significant changes to the Workers' Compensation legislation that were brought
in and recommended by the report of the statutory review committee that were
going to significantly improve the position of injured workers in this Province,
and restore some of the dignity that was taken away by them by this government
some years ago. That is absent from the legislative agenda of the minister.
I don't hear the government speaking out on behalf of the
poor people of this Province who are day in day out having their children go to
school hungry.
I have not heard about a school lunch program being promoted
by this government. We will hear about that day in and day out.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: But I am glad to have this open so that we
can bring these issues to the forefront.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to present to this House a mid-year report on
the Province's finances for the fiscal year 1997-98.
In March, the government presented a three-year fiscal plan
in its 1997 Budget. This was the first plan of its kind in the Province's
history. It was intended to bring stability and predictability to the Province's
finances, end mid-year budgetary adjustments -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. DICKS: - and create a climate for job creation and
economic growth.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that the plan is
working. This year, for the second time in a row, there will be no mid-year
budget adjustment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DICKS: There will be no unplanned downsizing. There
will be no pre-Christmas lay-off of public servants.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, let me review what was said in
the Budget and the progress we have made.
Our revenue forecast has been accurate and has improved
somewhat since budget time. Our expenditures have increased primarily in the
fields of health care and the educational systems. We will, however, meet our
budgetary targets.
The provincial economy has performed better than forecast.
Employment increased by 0.5 per cent between January and October of this year
over last year. Employment increased in October alone by about 6,300 jobs.
More than 2,000 new jobs in the fish processing sector added
a much needed boost to parts of rural Newfoundland, reflecting the reopening of
the cod fishery in certain parts of the Province, increased crab and shrimp
quotas, and the allocation of a shrimp quota to the inshore fishery for the
first time ever.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DICKS: The Harmonized Sales Tax has had a substantial
impact on retail trade in this Province. Sales were up 6.1 per cent in the
January to August period this year over last.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DICKS: As a result of these improvements, the
provincial economy will decline by 1.6 per cent rather than the 2.7 per cent
decline forecast at budget time.
Mr. Speaker, during the last provincial election we
acknowledged that these years, 1996 and 1997, would be difficult years for the
Province and for our provincial finances. We believed the economy would improve
after 1997, with strong economic growth in 1998 and beyond. Most of this growth
will come from major resource projects and developments. However, increased
employment and commercial activity will not immediately increase provincial
government revenues. Royalties from resource projects in particular are delayed
until major development costs are recovered. We must therefore continue a
careful and cautious fiscal approach since the direct benefits to the Province
from our large resource projects are still some time away.
While we can and do take heart from these economic
improvements, we cannot be foolish and spend money which has not yet accrued to
the treasury. We must keep our expenditures in line with our revenues.
Mr. Speaker, we are confident in the future of our Province.
Our plan to restore fiscal stability is working,. Our economy will improve
substantially and our people will enjoy greater opportunities for economic
growth and employment. For our part we must stay on track and create a positive
economic climate in which businesses will flourish and jobs be created. We are
committed to growth. Today's statement demonstrates that. Through careful
planning we are keeping that commitment. Our plan is fair, reasonable, and most
importantly, effective. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No wonder this
Province is in trouble. A three-year plan, two little pages in a budget talk
about a three-year plan that has no detail, no programs, no direction. The
Minister of Finance and Treasury Board thinks we have a fiscal plan for our
Province? I say there is something drastically wrong when we are spending more
on legal bills and lawsuits than we are spending on seniors who are being
starved to death here in the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: He stands and has the gall to tell us we do
not have a midyear correction, when they put a cushion of $30 million
contingency reserve fund into the Budget to allow for those legal bills, yes,
and other pending costs. It is little consolation, I say to the Minister of
Finance and Treasury Board, that 7,000 people left our Province in the last
year. They are the people you should talk to about an improvement in the
economy. To stand here and to tell us they are happy, things are improving
because their decline is only 1.6 per cent? I mean, a government that is
satisfied with any type of decline is a government that doesn't care about the
future of people in our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: The minister must realize that there are
16,000 less people working in this Province today -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's -
MR. SULLIVAN: - than when the Liberals came to power.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if 16,000 less people working
is a sign of progress, 16,000 in the Province today, the gateway - this Province
is open one way. If that is progress here, this government has a job to do. It
has to reassess its priorities and to look forward to giving us a fiscal plan
that is going to serve us well into the 21st century.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi, does he have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Premier and they deal with
Voisey's Bay.
The Premier seems to be fast tracking everything but changes
to the mineral and mining tax legislation, the one thing that will affect every
person in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I want to ask the Premier: if he can tell the people of the
Province today, why he has not brought amendments to this act into the House of
Assembly?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we are currently developing a new
tax act that will ensure that the Province receives a fair share in a very
competitive environment.
Mr. Speaker, we have all heard of the one year delay with
respect to this project. This government is reviewing all of our options; we
have hired some expertise around the world. When we bring this bill forward, we
have plenty of time, it will be the right bill, rather than a rushed bill.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition,
supplementary.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is not
an act they are developing, it is
an act that they
are putting on, I say to this House. We have been promised for three sessions
now that we would see this legislation.
Is the Premier aware that taxes fall within the jurisdiction
of the Minister of Finance and I ask him how much longer can we expect the
Province to wait for this legislation?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, he is quite right that this falls
within the ambient of the Minister of Finance, but it is also something that has
to be discussed with the Minister of Mines and Energy. There are a whole range
of complex issues. Ultimately, when the bill is tabled, it will be tabled
through the Department of Finance.
We have hired experts from around the world to give us the
best advice possible. There are a whole range of complex issues that have
entered into this equation, Mr. Speaker. Issues such as: how much will be paid
to the aboriginals, will there be off sets, what about the industrial benefits
agreement and impact benefits agreement that the company is negotiating,
equalization, a whole range of issues? This is not a simple issue. It is a very
complex issue and when we bring this legislation forward, it will be good
legislation rather than rushed legislation.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition,
supplementary.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister tell us who the experts are that are
providing the advice to government with this new legislation because I remember
back two years ago when the former Premier met with people, so called experts,
and brought legislation that he tabled here in the fall of 1995. Can you tell us
who the experts are that are giving advice now on tax legislations in this
government?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, once again the Leader of the
Opposition is campaigning to maintain the current bill, which would give an
unacceptable tax holiday to Inco. We are not prepared to give Inco a ten year
tax holiday for a one day tax holiday, and I know that the Leader of the
Opposition has nearly exhausted himself, suggesting that this holiday be
maintained.
Mr. Speaker, nobody, by the way - as I understand, all
parties of the House supported the bill when it was brought forward, the current
bill. The Leader of the NDP says he did not support it, but all of the
Conservative members did I believe, but nobody could have anticipated a find
like Voisey's Bay and the fact that there is a Voisey's Bay development and
there is a Voisey's Bay find, requires prudence and caution and care in drafting
a bill and that is what the Minister of Mines and Energy is saying and may I say
as well, that I certainly welcome, as I am sure many other readers of the
Evening Telegram did, welcome the sensible advice contained in an editorial
in the telegram a few days ago. When the editorial pointed out, that now that we
have the framework for an agreement in principal on the LIA Land Claims
Agreement, now that we are moving forward to fast track the negotiations with
the Innu, Mr. Speaker, prudence requires, we take our time on the mineral and
mining tax regime and get it right.
Mr. Speaker, we intend in this matter, because generations of
Newfoundlanders will be affected by it, we intend to be prudent, careful and do
our job right.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I gather The
Evening Telegram is now dictating legislation for our Province. I got it
from the Premier, that's his advice. (Inaudible) experts that he is going to
tell us.
Now Inco purchased Voisey's Bay from Diamond Field with a ten
year tax holiday on the books. Yes, that the former Liberal government put in
and we have been calling to have changed. Now can the Premier guarantee that
amendments to the mining and minerals tax rights legislation would stand up to a
legal challenge by Inco and has the Premier sought and received a legal opinion?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador should take note that we now have the extraordinary circumstance of
the Progressive Conservative Party of this Province advocating that the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has a legal obligation to give a ten
year tax holiday to Inco.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Leader of the NDP is not
associating himself with this policy position because I can tell the Leader of
the Opposition, we are going to wipe out the ten year tax holiday and we
challenge him to support the government in its efforts to ensure a full return
of the benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The question did not sound complicated, Mr. Speaker, I am
surprised that the Premier did not understand it.
MR. J. BYRNE: I am not surprised.
MR. SULLIVAN: I said I am surprised; I have to give him
that much credit. It probably went over his head.
I ask the Premier, can he really guarantee and assure the
people of this Province that he is in control of the Voisey's Bay project? Now
why is the Premier afraid to tell Inco what the minerals are worth? I ask the
Premier: At what business school did he learn to let the customer set the price?
I ask him, will he admit today that Inco and Voisey's Bay officials are pulling
his strings and making decisions that are best for Inco to the detriment of the
people of this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the Leader
of the Opposition, he can repeat it until he is blue in the face, the fact of
the matter is we on this side of the House reject the proposition that Inco is
entitled to a ten year tax holiday. We reject the assertion by the Leader of the
Opposition that they have a legal right to a ten year tax holiday and we put the
position that there will be no ten year tax holiday for Inco or for Voisey's Bay
Nickel. There will be a full share and a full share of the benefits both in
royalties and in jobs and in opportunities and in procurement for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador and as we have always said, if that is not the case
there won't be a development with Inco or with anybody else. We are going to
insist upon the full benefit for the Province, no tax holidays for anybody, no
matter how many times the Leader of the Opposition makes the case on behalf of
his friends at Inco.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, a
minister who hopefully knows more of what is going on in his department, Mr.
Speaker, than the previous minister that I was critic for, who did not have a
clue of what was going on in the Province or his department, the Minister of
Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
To the Minister of Finance, will the minister confirm that
government will be or is contemplating making changes to the retail sales tax
legislation and regulations regarding the resale of used vehicles, namely
forcing people to pay for money they did not spend?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government is
contemplating a change to the Retail Sales Tax Act.
AN HON. MEMBER: Shame, shame.
MR. J. BYRNE: Could you repeat that, I did not hear you?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. DICKS: Is the member asking me to repeat my answer?
MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Does the minister understand that it would
be another unconscionable tax grab and that this Liberal government will be
taxing money now spent by the already highest tax consumer in Canada?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker. This is a fair measure that
the government is considering introducing. We did the study from a period from
January through the following three months of a fiscal year. During that period
the professed values shown on the Bills of Sale by people registering sales of
private owners to other private owners was approximately one-third of the fair
market value of those vehicles. So, either -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. DICKS: Not at all, Mr. Speaker, they are just very
good buyers.
The issue for the Province and for the people, Mr. Speaker,
is, if a person contracts a sale with someone who is at arm's length and pays
tax on the full, fair market value, should we allow to exist at the same time,
another system where other people very often declare a value or contract sales
that are about a third of fair market value, it is really not fair for one
person to have to pay tax at $15,000 for a vehicle, another person to pay tax at
$5,000. So, Mr. Speaker, the issue really is: What is a fair and equitable
situation for everybody in this Province who transacts sales and incurs a tax
liability to the government? We believe a transaction should be monitored and
should be fair and the tax burden should be spread equally among the people of
the Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, a
supplementary.
MR. J. BYRNE: Too bad, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot sell
the minister for his book value. I tell you, you would not get too much for it.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that the proposed
changes apply to the ordinary citizen and that this tax change will not apply to
the car dealerships? What is coming next, taxes on the appraised value of ATVs,
ski-doos, used furniture, fridges, stoves and what have you and, are we not, by
using that system - what you are speaking of doing now - basically is a
carte-blanche system, are we not basically punishing the innocent for the
guilty?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker. There are two issues that the
hon. member raised. The first is: To whom it applies. At this point, the only
area we have identified as problematic is that between private individuals for
the reasons I earlier stated.
If it proved to be a problem between dealerships and
individuals then of course we would impose a suitable safeguard for the public
'per se ` as well. The second is that we are going to have an appeal mechanism
so that people can go to another group if they disagree with what the fair
market value is, as determined by the Red Book and seek an independent
assessment and we will determine from whom and from which route we will accept
an independent appraisal.
There was another point raised by the hon. member's question
but has been drowned out by the member beside him.
AN HON. MEMBER: You will not sell your car (inaudible).
MR. DICKS: I may, if the hon. member makes me a good
enough offer and will certainly declare it at fair market value.
The other thing we intend to do, Mr. Speaker, is to set up a
1-800 number so that anybody contemplating buying a vehicle will be able to
determine in advance what the Red Book value of it is, so he or she, in
purchasing that vehicle, can make allowance for the taxes to be paid and taxes
are often an issue to be negotiated between a vendor and purchaser in any event.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For the last year or so, questions in this House that were
asked of the previous Minister of Environment and Labour with respect to
workers' compensation system - not the present minister - were always responded
that the issues concerning Workers' Comp. are under review.
In May, Mr. Speaker, the Independent Statutory Review
Committee tabled its report, clearly with a number of recommendations, and a
scathing, scathing report, Mr. Speaker, with respect to government's recent
Legislative Agenda and changes made to the Workers' Compensation Act.
I would like to ask the minister - the new Minister of
Environment and Labour: What is government's agenda with respect to implementing
the recommendations contained in that report, what is the agenda and when can
injured workers in this Province see the recommendations in this report
implemented?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and
Labour.
MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The review was presented to the department back in May, and
since that particular time, the officials were in the department and have been
going through the thirty-plus recommendations. They are just about all finished
and when they are, within the next two or three weeks or so, we will then be
presenting the report to the Cabinet with the hope that the recommendations that
have been aired can be acted upon. Obviously, if we were to act upon every
recommendation that was in the report here, it would cost the compensation
review another $60 million; obviously, the balance has to be found between
looking after the injured worker and be fiscally prudent within the system
itself.
I can say to the hon. member that we are proceeding, and
hopefully within the next few weeks we can make the report available to Cabinet
and act from there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a
supplementary.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Environment
and Labour believes that these recommendations are going to cost $60 million to
implement, the only people he has listened to are the people at Workers'
Compensation, because that is clearly not the case.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Also, if the minister is saying that they
are proceeding with the recommendations according to the time line he has
outlined - his officials have acted upon five recommendations per month. Mr.
Speaker, the spirit of this report clearly comes down on the side of the injured
worker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is -
MR. E. BYRNE: When will the minister move, and move
quickly, to implement and put balance back into the system for the injured
workers of this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and
Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Whether it is done five per month, or
whatever way you want to look at it, we are proceeding to deal with the
recommendations. We take them seriously.
I have met with the Injured Workers Association, and have
said to Mr. Haynes that there is nobody who will sympathize with him any more
than I. Obviously, at the end of the day, we will make the recommendations that
are best, that the Commission itself - I have talked to them as well. We will
make the best recommendations that we can for the injured workers, but we will
make sure that the plan remains viable and prudent, and we will do that as
expeditiously as we can.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a
supplementary.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister still has not
said anything really. All he has said is that they are going to look at the
recommendations, it is going to Cabinet, and it will be reported back to the
House sometime.
What people are looking for today, Mr. Minister, with respect
to the Workers' Compensation system, is action now that will put some balance
back into the system for them.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: The question for you remains: When can you
confirm for this House that legislation that has to be enacted and changed with
respect to this report will be done? Will it be done this fall, or will the
people have to wait until 1998 or 1999 to see the spirit and the recommendations
from this report implemented?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Can you answer that, please?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and
Labour.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We will act as expeditiously as we possibly can, and if we
can do it in the fall, we will. I guarantee you, it will be done before 1999,
but at the end of the day we will do what is right for the worker and what is
right to make the plan fiscally prudent.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs.
In Gander on the weekend, the minister told the elected
municipal leaders of the Province that things might be tough now but they will
get tougher and rougher before municipalities can expect to see any increased
help with their finances.
Given the fact that municipalities, especially those in rural
areas of the Province, are seeing their communities dismantled piece by piece
and bit by bit over a period of years now, how can this minister, who cut his
political teeth at the municipal level, sit around and be part of a Cabinet
table and a government that sees decisions made that are strangling
municipalities in all parts of the Province, in particular, municipalities in
rural Newfoundland?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been
listening to his friend, the newly-elected president of the federation this
morning on CBC, he would have heard that I did not say things were going to get
worse. I did not say that. The media that wrote that story incorrectly quoted
some comments that I made.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. A. REID: What I did say, Mr. Speaker, was that we are
going now through a period of hope, I suppose, and that in the next year or so I
am hoping that this government will reconsider what we have done, I suppose, in
regard to municipalities over the last number of years, and at the end of the
day I am hoping, as the minister of municipalities, that we can at least try in
some way to assist municipalities in the Province from here on in, rather than -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. A. REID: That is exactly what I said. I did not say
that things were going to get any worse. I hope things do not get any worse,
because I don't think most municipalities in the Province, especially rural
municipalities - and the hon. member knows nothing about it because he is not in
a rural municipality, he lives in a city.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. A. REID: I hope it does not go any further because
rural Newfoundland communities are the ones I am more concerned about, Mr.
Speaker. I am not concerned about the Mount Pearls of the world, or the City of
St. John's or the City of Corner Brook. I am concerned about the small rural
communities in this Province and I think I can say that on behalf of everyone
sitting on this side of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the minister can tell
me whether he is in the loop or out of the loop when it comes to decisions about
Mount Pearl now. Because last year he admitted he was out of the loop and the -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the tax base of
municipalities is shrinking through business closures, through out-migration,
the cod moratorium, et cetera. The changing demographics is meaning that those
who can move out of rural Newfoundland very often are moving. I ask the
minister: Why do you do more to foster resettlement than you do to encourage
solid and consistent alternate economic development in rural Newfoundland?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for
Waterford Valley is asking this government to reconsider a resettlement program
in the Province. I will tell you, Sir, this government will never consider a
resettlement program! I will not be the Minister of Municipal and Provincial
Affairs for any government that considers a resettlement program. Go back down
in the bay. Send him back out in the bay where he came from, to get a feel for
something other than Mount Pearl!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to get my
colleagues here to pass me some cigarettes for the minister so he can calm
himself. I want to say to the minister: What I said was that your government is
doing more to foster resettlement than you are to encourage economic
development.
I finally want to say to the minister that we, on this side,
believe that rural municipalities deserve a fair and equitable share of the
Province's fiscal resources. I want to say to the minister, having admitted in
Gander your failure to convince your Cabinet colleagues and going to Gander and
blaming your Cabinet colleagues and saying to them: `Please give me help, I
cannot do the job in there,' how can you today sit in Cabinet and come out and
say these kinds of things? Mr. Minister, you have a choice. You can either quit
on principle that you cannot get the job done, or you can ask to be replaced
because you cannot fulfil the mandate as passed to you by the municipalities of
this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs.
MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour, I suppose, on
Saturday and Sunday to be with the largest group of municipal politicians I
think that has ever come together for the Federation of Municipalities. I have
to be quite honest and say to you, all that I got, and my colleagues that were
with me on Saturday, the panel was -
AN HON. MEMBER: The most ministers ever attended.
MR. A. REID: Most ministers ever attended, and -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. A. REID: I can honestly say, in the forty-eight hours
I was there, and I say this unequivocally, there was not one person, not one
councillor, not one mayor, who came up and spoke any - they came up and spoke
nothing only praise for what we had been trying to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. A. REID: I have no problem with saying I am quite
comfortable in the job as Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I feel
that I have more compassion for rural communities in the Province than the vast
majority of the elected city representatives that sit on the other side of the
House. I quite honestly can say that the Federation of Municipalities have been
long-time friends of mine, and have been to me as the minister for the past five
years. I hope the Premier keeps me in the position for another little while, so
that if and when it comes around that we might have a few dollars to help rural
Newfoundland and municipalities, then I am the one who can go and make the
announcement and say we are Liberals and we will try to do our best to
accommodate rural Newfoundland in particular as much as we can.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. A. REID: In saying that, Mr. Speaker
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.
MR. A. REID: In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I will add that
because, I suppose, I am a bayman, I have a little bit more appreciation for
rural Newfoundland, but then, with that said, I have to spend a fair amount of
my time, on a daily basis, which I enjoy, looking after the cities in the
Province as well.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is too bad that the minister did not give up smoking long
before this because it is obviously taking its toll.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the
Premier of the Province.
Approximately one year ago, the federal Liberal Government
reneged on its commitment and obligation to thousands of Newfoundland fishermen
and plant workers by taking a full year of benefit away from the TAGS program.
It was slated to end in 1999; now, the new date is May, 1998. I ask the Premier:
would he today inform those thousands of hard-working, dedicated
Newfoundlanders, who are presently going through a great turmoil in their life -
would he inform them as to a replacement program for the TAGS program when it
expires in six months time?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his
question and I would like to point out to him that we, on this side, are as
concerned about what is going to happen in May of 1998 as anybody else in this
Province or indeed, anybody else in this country and that includes himself. I
know what we are all concerned about: What will happen to those 18,000 people?
To that end, Mr. Speaker, we have had various meetings. It is
a federal responsibility. We are pointing out to them that it is a federal
responsibility. We are telling them that it will not be taken care of through
normal programming needs and that there is a definite need. We are impressing
upon them the need to indeed undertake initiatives. In that regard, we hope and
we believe that one of the chief vehicles we have to Ottawa - and the hon.
gentleman will recall that on Friday afternoon I made a press statement saying
that I would hope the Baker Fisheries Committee visits all of the areas affected
in this Province rather than just along the South Coast and one stop on the
Northern Peninsula, indeed, the Labrador Coast.
I might tell the hon. gentleman that we are also having a
senior group of civil servants in this Province look at the TAGS program that is
ongoing now as well as to look at how indeed we might be able to offer some
advice to the Federal Government when and if the time comes, as to how a new
program - a son of TAGS program if you would - might be structured. Mr. Speaker,
I want to assure the hon. gentleman that we are leaving no stone unturned to see
that the Federal Government lives up to its responsibility of taking care of
those 18,000 people, not through an income support program, not through any
welfare program but through an income replacement program for something over
which those people had no control. I want to assure him that if he has any
advice to offer to us, please feel free to do so.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for
Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, when this full year of salary was taken from the
TAGS recipients, your Liberal cousins stated that funding would possibly
continue after the May 1998 deadline if those who were eligible for their
program were going to access EI or what have you. Would the Premier indicate
today if those 18,000 people, who will be affected by this shameless act, can
expect a cheque after May 15 of next year, and if so, for how long?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that all members
in this place would co-operate to make the case to the national government as
effectively as possible, that there needs to be a follow-up program to TAGS. If
the Federal Government has decided that TAGS should come to an end, then there
needs to be a follow-up program. Mr. Speaker, one of the ways to effectively
demonstrate the size of the need and the size of the problem is to have the
Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Fisheries - chaired, and I must
say chaired very ably, by the Member for Gander - Grand Falls, George Baker -
hold hearings in the parts of the Province most affected.
For example, on the Northeast Coast, the member opposite
would have a good knowledge of the size of the impact of the loss to the fishery
there, those who were formerly dependent upon fish in 2J-3KL; for example, on
the Great Northern Peninsula, where there has been a devastation of people who
formerly had a dependence on the cod fishery; on the Labrador Coast, where in
many cases people have not yet had a chance to be heard.
Mr. Speaker, our hope is that in about - is it ten days time?
AN HON. MEMBER: November 23 or something.
PREMIER TOBIN: On November 23, when the Standing
Committee comes to the Province, it will take whatever additional time that is
required to go in particular to those parts of the Province where people are
most affected, and give the fishermen and plant workers themselves a chance to
be heard.
Mr. Speaker, we will fully support in every way we can - and
the minister who has just spoken has taken up the responsibility on the Cabinet
Committee for Rural Revitalization, and indeed has been in Ottawa and has met
with Mr. Pettigrew - we will fully support all the initiatives to bring forth a
successor program. We think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador most
directly affected have to be given a chance to be heard.
MR. SPEAKER: Time for one quick question.
The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.
Premier, you are the First Minister of this Province, not
George Baker, not the fisheries Standing Committee in Ottawa, not Eugene
Harrigan. I ask the Premier if he would today commit to taking a lead action and
put forward the proposals of his government, taking into consideration
possibilities like early retirement and licence buy-back. Premier, when will you
take a lead role and not shrug off the responsibility as you are now doing, and
as your predecessor did before you?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, you know, sometimes the facts
should survive the cut and thrust of the Question Period. The fact of the matter
is, this government is doing all of the things it can do and should do to make
the case to the national government to bring forward a successor program.
I would remind the member opposite that I remember full well
in 1993 a federal election campaign in this Province when the current leader of
the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Jean Charst, came to this Province and
said: I cannot guarantee, nor am I prepared to announce on behalf of my party, a
successor program to something that was then called NCARP. I remember full well,
and by the way, the member remembers, because he was then involved with the
union, that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada refused to bring
forward a successor program.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: What did I do? I brought forward a
multi-billion dollar replacement called TAGS. That is what I did when I had the
responsibility.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that successor program
provided income for 27,000 families. Let me conclude by saying this.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: This is the party opposite that in the
last federal election campaigned on eliminating the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans Canada because it said there is no future in the fishery. Mr. Speaker, we
are doing our job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on
tomorrow move the following resolution:
WHEREAS all Members of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of
Assembly wish to underscore and emphasize their strong commitment to the unity
of Canada; and
WHEREAS Canada's federalist premiers and territorial leaders
met in Calgary on September 4, 1997, and agreed on a framework for discussion on
Canadian unity; and
WHEREAS Members of this House have consulted Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians on this framework and have found that citizens of the Province
have a strong commitment to Canada, to the importance of Quebec's place within
Canada; and
WHEREAS Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are committed to the
prosperity, vitality and wellbeing of Canada; and
WHEREAS Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are supportive of
reforming the Canadian federation so as to strengthen and improve the ability of
the federal and provincial governments to work together for the benefit of all
Canadians;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly of
Newfoundland and Labrador, on behalf of the citizens of our Province, endorses
the Calgary declaration as follows:
All Canadians are equal and have rights protected by law. All
provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equality of status.
Canada is graced by a diversity, tolerance, compassion, and an equality of
opportunity that is without rival in the world. Canada's gift of diversity
languages, and a multicultural citizenry drawn from all parts of the world.
In Canada's federal system, where respect for diversity and
equality underlines unity, the unique character of Quebec's society, including
its French-speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law, is
fundamental to the well-being of Canada.
Consequently, the Legislature and the Government of Quebec
have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec's society
within Canada. If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one
Province, these powers must be available to all Provinces.
Canada is a federal system where federal, provincial and
territorial governments work in partnership while respecting each other's
jurisdictions. Canadians want their governments to work cooperatively and with
flexibility to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the federation.
Canadians want their governments to work together, particularly in the delivery
of their social programs. Provinces and territories renew their commitment to
Canadians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on
tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Human
Rights Code".
I further give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to
introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Law Act".
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of
Government Services and Lands who is out of the Province on business today, I
give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An
Act Respecting The Transfer Of The Personal Trusteeship And Agency Business Of
Montreal Trust Company Of Canada And Montreal Trust Company To The Bank Of Nova
Scotia Trust Company", known as Bill No. 24.
On behalf of the same minister, Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To
Enable Information To Be Filed Electronically By Business", Bill No. 38.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the same minister I give notice
that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend
The Mechanics Lien Act".
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled, "An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act".
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave
to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Intergovernmental Affairs
Act", Bill No. 40.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on
tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Provincial
Parks Act".
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce
the following Private Member's resolution:
WHEREAS the provincial government has consistently reduced
funding for municipalities in recent years, especially through drastic cuts in
the municipal operating grant; and
AND
WHEREAS the Provincial government has consistently and
unfairly transferred additional responsibilities to the municipalities;
AND
WHEREAS the Provincial governments down loading has
increased the unfunded responsibilities of the municipalities;
AND
WHEREAS many municipalities, especially in some rural
parts of the Province, see their tax base eroding through out-migration,
unemployment, business closures, etc.;
AND
WHEREAS the government of Newfoundland and Labrador has
through errors of omission and commission, actively participated in dismantling
of rural communities little by little, service by service;
AND
WHEREAS the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs
has stated that this will be a distant dream for rural municipalities to hope
for a fair and equitable share of public resources;
AND
WHEREAS increasing the tax rates and/or the assessed
property values in many municipalities serves only to increase the accounts
payable;
AND
WHEREAS many municipalities are caught in financial
dilemmas that has caused municipal councils to reduce services below reasonable
levels;
AND
WHEREAS the provincial government has the legal, moral
and political responsibilities to do everything it can to preserve the integrity
of local government in this Province;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly oppose
any further transfers of unfunded liabilities to municipalities by the
government of Newfoundland and Labrador;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly direct
the Provincial Government to restore the integrity of municipal level of
government through a cancellation of all proposed cuts to municipal operating
grant and that the Provincial Government aggressively negotiate a new
municipal/provincial/financial relationship that recognizes the grave and
imminent threat to the integrity of municipal government in all parts of the
Province, but more particularly in rural Newfoundland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce
the following Bills entitled, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act,
An Act To
Amend The Tobacco Tax Act,
An Act To Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act,
An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 and The Uniform Services
Pensions Act, 1991,
An Act To Establish The Labrador Transportation Initiative
Fund,
An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act,
An Act To Amend The Financial
Administration Act,
An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, and
An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain
resolutions for the granting of supplementary supply to Her Majesty.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of - I do not
know exact numbers, but hundreds of people of the community of Pacquet and
Woodstock and I will read the petition first and make a few comments: To the
hon. House of Assembly, legislation session convened. We the undersigned
residents of the community of Pacquet and Woodstock do hereby strongly request
the government of Newfoundland and Labrador to refrain from making further
funding cuts to education in recognition of the negative impact that these
reductions are having on the education of our children and Mr. Speaker, our
future.
Mr. Speaker, throughout the last several weeks around my
district and I know around other parts of the Province, the school councils
which have been formed, which I will say is a positive aspect of the education
reform, have taken it upon themselves to express their views and concerns that
they see as education reform goes forward. I guess the bottom line and the whole
essence of all these discussions that I have been to and I have been to five now
in my district, five different places where on occasion I had our critic, the
member for St. John's East and the member for Conception Bay South, accompany me
to King's Point where we had a very lively discussion, Mr. Speaker, but all of
these places, Mr. Speaker, have said: the bottom line of all this is that
education reform was supposed to be for the better and that is what they look
for, Mr. Speaker. But as they raise these concerns, yes, I have heard the
minister say that it is all speculation, rumours, fearmongering by certain
groups or by certain boards and whatever, but I still think that these parents
with what these school councillors are made up of, have every right to express
their concerns before the fact and it is no good to close the barn door after
the horses are out.
In these particular places, Mr. Speaker, in Pacquet and
Woodstock, they do not want to see more reduction in teachers, therefore finally
I guess, Mr. Speaker, they do not want to see the death of the school in that
community. What we have now, are small children travelling on buses and they do
not want to see Kindergarten, Grades I and II, six and seven years old, heading
over roads and to which I should add, that are deplorable at best in these
particular areas, Mr. Speaker, so that it all relates and are all built together
in the whole idea of rural Newfoundland now. It is not just the fact of the
schools; it is the roads, the hospitals and so on. So, Mr. Speaker, what these
people are doing, and they have every right to do that, is to express through
petitions, through meetings they have had and so on, a view, to this government
and to the minister that they are very concerned about more downgrading and more
cuts, and like they have said to me, Mr. Speaker, point blank, and they said it
to my colleagues in the meetings we have had - in Springdale also, we had a
meeting, the Member for Windsor Springdale was there, they put forthright their
concerns.
Now yes, it is fine to say, and I hope at the end of the day,
that the Member for Windsor - Springdale and I, and the minister and everybody
else can stand up and say: No, that was high numbers we have heard on
re-allocation of teachers, we hope that they are wrong and that we all stand up
and say: parents, you had your concerns but it did not come to fruition so I
guess at least, you voiced your concern. That is all they are saying, Mr.
Speaker. I talked to these people after some of these meetings were over and
some of them did say that, we hope that it is right, that when the minister says
that these reductions will not take place, Mr. Speaker, they are also hoping
that very little of it takes place. Maybe you get the worst case scenario and
you end up with something in between. Well I am hoping that is what it is
because, in essence, what it is they are saying is: get on with education
reform, support what is going on through Ottawa now, support it in your House of
Assembly but at the same time, remember that in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker,
these schools in these communities mean a lot more than a building. They are the
heart and soul of that community.
In Woodstock, Mr. Speaker, this particular school - as a
matter of fact, I have had the pleasure of teaching there on occasion and, Mr.
Speaker, the students whom they have turned out, they can be very proud of, and
the parents in Pacquet and Woodstock contribute to that school and make it a
very worthwhile part of that community, and I guess any time you see a threat of
any type of a school or a hospital, it is just human nature and that is what
these people have done here to express their views that they are concerned, that
they do not want to see further cutbacks, so for the sake of the children of
Pacquet and Woodstock and other communities around the Province but in
particular today, Mr. Speaker, I stand proud to represent my constituents to say
that they are concerned and they ask this government to, please look very hard
at any further reductions and that they are minimized so that the bottom line at
the end of the day is that the children of Pacquet and Woodstock are deserving
and can get as good a quality of education as any where else in this Province
because we are all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we all deserve equal
treatment, especially when it comes to education.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today, Mr. Speaker, to rise in support of the
petition as brought forward by my colleague the Member for the District of Baie
Verte.
As the member indicated, Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity
several weeks ago to hear firsthand from a number of parents, students and
teachers from a number of communities particularly in the Central Newfoundland
area who, expressed serious concern, almost alarmed, Mr. Speaker, as to the
status of the education system in this Province today and quite likely, Mr.
Speaker, what has been proposed for the school year, 1998-1999.
Mr. Speaker, parents and students and teachers, many of whom
form these new school councils have indicated that they are deeply concerned
about proposed cuts to their schools and how these cuts will affect not only
their schools but also the communities of rural Newfoundland. The smaller
schools, the smaller communities.
They are wondering about their programs. They are wondering
about their computer programs, their French classes, their physical education
classes, their industrial arts classes, those programs which have a specialty
nature to them and require those teachers with the specialization and with the
expertise to ensure that students in smaller schools, in smaller communities,
are given the same opportunity, there is an equal playing field for students in
rural Newfoundland, and as it relates to students in our larger communities.
These are the concerns, and these are the concerns that have
been expressed very clearly by these student councils, which when we met with
them said to us: We are concerned about proposed cuts, we are concerned about
the existence of smaller schools in rural Newfoundland, and therefore we are
concerned about the very existence of our community.
The petition which was brought forward today is just one
example of one community, but I can assure members of this House that these are
concerns as expressed by many communities in our Province. Teachers have
expressed concern, through their various branch presidents of the NLTA. School
councils, which are perhaps one of the most positive parts of the new Schools
Act, have expressed their concern. We must be vigilant at all times to ensure
that smaller schools receive a fair representation and that our smaller
communities are not short changed in any way as a result of any proposed cuts
that may be envisioned by the minister with respect to his so-called plan of
education reform in this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to
take a couple of minutes in response to the petition presented by members
opposite.
I recognize fully and agree that the parents have every right
to speak out with respect to issues that are of importance to them, and I'm very
pleased that they are speaking out with respect to education, and encourage them
to continue to do so. The only difficulty I've been expressing in response to
what is happening, particularly in Central Newfoundland in District #5, is that
it is at this point in time unnecessary, inappropriate. Because of the fact that
the concern that they are expressing is based upon misinformation and improper
information and unfounded speculation produced by the school board.
That at a point in time when students themselves, and
teachers, are normally just getting back into the flow of a new school year -
because this started the third week in September - schools were hardly open for
this year before a document was circulated by the school board suggesting to
parents in District #5 that in their schools, some fifty-odd schools, they may
be going to lose as many as 122 teachers in September of 1998.
No wonder you would get parents, students, and student
councils suggesting that they are concerned. From the very first day that I
heard the information I asked the school board not to present the information,
because it wasn't based on any fact. It was its speculation. It was not based on
information received from the Department of Education.
To put it in context, there were three things that we dealt
with, all arising from last year's Budget. One was that this school year now, we
would agree with the school boards as to a designation of small, necessarily
existent schools for September of 1998. For September of 1998, Mr. Speaker. Not
September of 1997. All the schools that are operating are operating. They still
have their small schools allocation. As a matter of fact, in a meeting with the
school board chairs and directors just a few days ago, on Friday of last week,
we have now understood that we have not quite finished that process yet, but
within a week or ten days we expect to be able to agree upon which schools in
each of the ten districts are small, necessarily existent schools.
The legislation that was passed here with the support of
members opposite in the new Schools Act indicates that we are legally bound to
name and gazette those small, necessarily existent schools. The resources that
are going to go in them are to be identified by the government, and the school
boards must allocate those resources into those schools.
What we had happening in District #5, places like Cottrell's
Cove, which everybody who understands it knows, Mr. Speaker, was speculative
information circulated by the school board whereby schools in places like
Cottrell's Cove, which everybody who understands it knows that it is going to be
necessarily existent, were told that they didn't know, they couldn't assure the
parents, that it was going to be a small, necessarily existent school. No more
they couldn't, because the discussion between the government and the school
boards was ongoing, hadn't been concluded; still isn't concluded. Right away you
have the people being alarmed because they aren't assured that any resources
will be put into their school because the preliminary discussion had only just
begun.
In previous years it has never been normal for any government
to let school boards know what their teacher allocations are for a subsequent
school year until the budget. Last year was one of the earliest times they ever
heard. They heard in March, and then they have until May 7 to make their
adjustments. This year we had told them last spring we hoped to have it done by
Christmas. A school board went out two or three days after school opened and
said: We don't know how many teachers you have for next year, you might be going
to lose 122. I've spent the whole time since trying to say to them: Don't go
into a panic over that. The numbers are totally unrealistic.
What we have is the following. The small, necessarily
existent schools will be determined within a week or ten days. The teachers who
will be in them will be told to every board and every school that qualifies
under the act.
Secondly, we have said, as a matter of policy, that the
teacher enrolment will track the student population size as a matter of policy.
This year it was just confirmed, last week, that the enrolments from last year
to this year have declined by 4,597 students. Just confirmed last week. Now we
have to determine how many teachers are likely to be coming out of the system as
a result of that for the next school year. That will happen in consultation with
the school boards over the next two or three weeks. We had a discussion about it
again on Friday.
Thirdly, we did say in the Budget that we would discuss the
possibility of moving -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. GRIMES: - the pupil-teacher ratio to the national
average. We told them on Friday, Mr. Speaker, -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. GRIMES: - that that won't be happening. We will
finish the planning. The numbers will be available to all the -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: - school boards in a couple of weeks -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: - and there is no need to be alarmed.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to
present a petition. To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative
session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:
Whereas the government gave public notice in late July or early August 1997 that
it would accept public submissions only until August 30, 1997 regarding the
government's proposal to remove bridges on the railway bed on the Bonavista
Peninsula and other areas; and
whereas these beds are used by local residents
and tourists for numerous recreational activities including snowmobiling, ATV
use, berry picking, the hauling of firewood, and hiking; and
whereas these
bridges and the railway bed in this area may have untapped recreational and
tourism potential generating new economic activity, as is happening on the main
railway bed with the construction of the T'Railway; and
whereas local groups
such as development associations, municipalities, service groups, and tourism
groups, as well as businesses and individuals, could take over the
responsibility of maintaining these structures if given adequate time to put
together proposals; and
whereas these historic structures once they are gone are
gone for good; wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador to delay actions to remove the bridges from the railway beds along
this route and extend the deadline for receiving submissions regarding the
future of these bridges and the railway bed.
Mr. Speaker, this is a petition signed by 200 to 300 people
from the Districts of Bonavista South, Trinity North, and Terra Nova. It is a
situation whereby in July the government put forward its proposal to look for
suggestions, I suppose, if you would, or their intent to remove the railway
bridges on the Bonavista branch, the old CN rail bed.
Since that particular time many residents have gotten
together and have come forward through petitions that I have brought forward
here in the House, as well as meeting with the minister and writing the Minister
of Government Services and Lands. I have to commend the minister that he has
gone out. He has gone out to my district, he has been out to the District of
Trinity North, I know, and he has met with some of the concerned residents
there, and has agreed to give them more time to put together some proposals.
The thing that I was not particularly in favour of, Mr.
Speaker, was that the minister only met and invited town councils along. I think
that other people should have had an opportunity to come forward and voice their
opinions. I think of recreation groups, I think of development associations, Mr.
Speaker, not only municipal governments because, for the most part, municipal
governments, town councillors are very busy doing what they are supposed to be
doing and that is looking after their own affairs within the boundaries of their
towns.
We did have a very good meeting in Bonavista and the minister
agreed to take their concerns and proposals back to reconsider what he had
intended to do in the first place. He has only slowed it down. He does not have
the brakes put on it, I do not think. People raised the concern that if those
bridges were going to be removed, then government should look at the cost of
removing the bridges and maybe put that in some form of funding for a joint
venture between the development associations and government and, instead of
removing the bridges, repair the bridges.
Many people use this railway bed for recreational purposes.
They use it for their ATV and they use it for their ski-doos. Those machines are
not allowed to be used on public roads, they are not allowed to be used on the
wetlands; this was their only - well, it was a good area, I suppose, that they
could go and access the railway bed, have some enjoyment, and do it in a safe
manner, bothering nobody.
Now this particular railway bed, if the bridges are removed,
will eliminate a roadway to some favourite berry-picking grounds. It will
eliminate a roadway or an access to areas where people go to cut firewood and
cut logs, to take those logs and bring them out to the main road to carry them
home. If we take one bridge, in many cases, we could eliminate a whole area. We
are not looking for bridges to support a train anymore. There is no train and I
doubt if this government will be bringing one back, Mr. Speaker. What we are
asking for are bridges to be kept in a repairable condition where people can use
it for their recreational purposes, as they are doing today. If we can spend a
small amount of money and do it in partnership with some of the other groups
there to give it some perpetual care, then there is no reason why this railway
bed cannot be used for years and years to come. We should never forget or lose
sight of the fact -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. Just a minute to finish up.
You should never lose sight of the fact -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.
MR. FITZGERALD: You should never lose sight of the fact
that this particular railway bed is a generator of revenue for the government.
People go out and buy gasoline, they buy machines and they pay taxes on their
machines and people are working repairing them. So it is a snowball effect that
we all can benefit from if we only had the interest to continue to provide this
opportunity for the people in that particular area to be allowed to access the
railway bed, which is a perfect trailway, Mr. Speaker. It can be used not only
for recreational purposes but for purposes that are very dear to many people out
there, if we can help sustain them in the economic conditions that they find
themselves in today, especially on the Bonavista Peninsula. Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in my place today to support the petition presented by
the Member for Bonavista South. Mr. Speaker, he made some very good arguments
with respect to the old railway lines across this Province. Many years ago when
the people of the Province were dependent upon the railway, we knew their use
and why they were utilized and how important they were, but since we have
removed all the train tracks, the trestles, and what have you, Mr. Speaker, from
the railways, now we see that the people in the Province want to utilize the old
railway lines for other purposes, namely, for recreation, mostly. In some, I
suppose, we could get into the new businesses in the Province in promoting
tourism. Often you will see on television now a group trying to raise money to
have a Trans-Canada trail right across this country, from St. John's,
Newfoundland to British Columbia. I think they are looking for so many dollars
per metre, and you have your name associated with that trail.
Here in Newfoundland, on the East Coast, we have a group, the
East Coast Trails Association, trying to get a trail right around the Northeast
Avalon, starting out around, I believe, Harbour Grace, somewhere in that area,
and coming right around up the northwest side of the Peninsula, and coming
around out to Cape St. Francis, up through Pouch Cove, Flatrock, Logy Bay,
Torbay, Bauline, all around the whole community, linking into St. John's, going
on up to Petty Harbour and right on out to St. Mary's. That, in itself, will
tell you what the potential is for these railway lines. Often in these
communities up in Witless Bay and Bay Bulls you can link into the old railway
lines and make it a part of the trail.
The Member for Bonavista South mentioned that these trails,
the lines out in that area for which he presented the petition, could be
utilized for recreation. Now we had this Administration, a few years ago, the
Liberal Government, bring in regulations with respect to ATVs, by which you were
restricted as to where you could use ATVs in this Province. Especially on the
marshes of the Province, you cannot use ATVs anymore, these three-wheeler bikes
and the quad bikes, and what have you. But these old railway lines are an ideal
location to make use of these vehicles, the three-wheeler motorized bikes. So it
is very important, I think, that we have the long-term view.
Now, of course, if you are going to go in and remove the
railway trestles and bridges, and what have you, all over this Province with
respect to the old railway lines because there may be some liability, how much
money are we going to spend to remove all of these trestles and bridges and so
on? How much money is going to be spent?
If we took those same dollars, probably, and put them back
into revitalizing these railway lines to clear the brush, to maintain the
bridges and give people access to the interior of Newfoundland and to the
different peninsulas within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the
dollars could be very well spent.
I do not know if the government has done a study. I would
like to know if the government has done a study to see what the cost would be to
remove the bridges and the trestles, as we used to refer to them. We have done a
study -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: I do not know. Have you? I am asking the
minister.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: The Government House Leader does not think
so. Then again -
AN HON. MEMBER: He does not think.
MR. J. BYRNE: He does not think. But he does not think so
in particular about this, another example of the government going ahead
blindfolded, not having a clue about what they are doing, not having one iota as
to the impact of what is happening in this Province.
The Minister of Tourism, I expect, will get up and speak to
this now, hearing me speak on it.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, and hopefully she will be able to
bring some support to this for the constituents in Gander who were so upset out
there with the Lakeside Home, and the closing of the -
AN HON. MEMBER: The food was so delicious.
MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, the food was delicious. It will be
delicious. It was not delicious; it will be delicious.
It was said that the minister had some clout in Cabinet. I
hope she did, to get this back. The person who led the attack on this, of
course, was the Member for CBS - he is the man.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER: Give credit to (inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Give credit where credit is due.
The Minister of Tourism, I suppose, had some say. I imagine
she was quite upset with this whole issue.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.
MR. TULK: Thirty-five per cent (inaudible) one minute.
MR. J. BYRNE: One minute.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Cape St.
Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, I would say again to the Minister
of Tourism that hopefully she will get up and speak to the petition presented by
the Member for Bonavista South - speak in favour, of course, of the petition and
see what they can do to support the wishes of the people who signed that
petition, the hundreds of people's names that I heard the member mention. On
that note I will leave it to the Minister of Tourism.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the petition
that was presented by the Member for Bonavista South. My hon. colleague, the
Minister of Government Services and Lands, as has been pointed out, has been out
in the district, all through the three districts, actually, of Bonavista South,
Trinity North and Terra Nova, meeting with concerned citizens about this, and of
course, many consultations have been held by telephone and through
letter-writing. I know that he has consulted with me quite extensively on this,
being that my department is in charge of the trailway throughout the Province.
We also, from a tourism perspective, understand very, very well the importance
of trail development, both to our in-province tourism residents and also to
residents who come from outside of the Province to experience our great
wilderness and all of the trail systems throughout the Province.
As many people would know, the trailway is very important to
our Province's future tourism product, but also trails like the East Coast
Trail, the Bonavista Trail that has been referred to, the Cormack Trail, all of
these are very, very important, as they will eventually interconnect with the
National Trailway system which will run from one end of Canada to the other.
I am very happy, actually, with the Minister of Government
Services and Lands response to the citizens in this area and I know that he is
working diligently on this issue to ensure and to protect, if at all possible,
the bridges and railway trestles and everything in that area, but first and
foremost, of course, safety. Public safety has to be the biggest issue here and,
of course, we all recognize within the fiscal constraints that we live in, he is
currently assessing whether the cost of removing the bridges and trestles would,
in fact, be enough in working with groups in the area and on other areas, too, I
should say, throughout the Province, if it is enough to keep them going.
I suspect that the answer will be in the positive but, of
course, we have to make sure that public safety comes first. And in the end we
know that all of these trail systems will be wonderful for our tourism product,
both for people, as the other members have pointed out, for gaining access to
hunting ground, to berry patches, to cabins, etc., but also for out-of-Province
tourists, of whom we hope after the success of our Cabot Celebrations, there
will be many, many more.
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition to the hon. House of
Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament Assembled. The petition
reads as follows:
Whereas poverty and its effects are serious problems for so
many in this Province and that things are getting worse, not better, now more
than one-third of Newfoundland and Labrador children live in families on social
assistance.
The petitioners talk about the need for amelioration of child
poverty and child hunger in this Province and its effects on the ability of
these children to learn in our schools. The undersigned petition the House of
Assembly to direct the government to establish a universal comprehensive School
Lunch Program for every school in Newfoundland and Labrador to help end child
hunger and to give our children a better chance to learn and participate fully
in the benefits of education.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these petitioners were present at a meeting
held last week and the member for St. John's West was there as well. It was a
group of people who got together because they are concerned about the serious
problems of food security in this Province where the ability of people in the
Province to have nutritious food is at risk; and no greater is it at risk, Mr.
Speaker, than in the case of hungry children in the Province.
I was very distressed today to hear the Minister of Finance
get up and pat himself and his government on the back, saying the best thing I
think he could say for the economy of the Province, that we are going backwards
a little bit slower than we thought we were. We through we were going downhill
at 2.7 per cent, but we are only going downhill at 1.6 per cent - and we pat
ourselves on the back for that, Mr. Speaker. Well, I am concerned about the
plight of hungry children in this Province and we have to have that addressed by
this House of Assembly and by this government.
I am not satisfied to see this treated as a charity issue.
The Minister of Education has said in the past that we are relying on the
voluntary sector to look after this issue and we are giving them a few dollars
to help them along. Well, so far, that has resulted in a maximum number of
thirty-two school meal programs in this Province out of in excess of 400
schools. They are not reaching the hungry children. The programs are not yet
working because they are not capable of working, because the resources do not
exist in the communities that are most in need of a program for children in
schools.
Later on this week, National Children's Day has been
needs, hopes, and potential of all children. It is the anniversary of the
adoption of the United Nations declaration on the rights of the child. Canada
adopted a convention on the rights of the child in 1989, and the provinces and
the Federal Government committed to ending child hunger by the year 2000.
Where are we in this Province? We are nowhere. We cannot even
make sure that our senior citizens in government-run homes are fed properly
without a fight - a fight for dignity that at least senior citizens, at least
our elderly citizens, are able to fight for themselves and to get involved in a
campaign to shame this government into acting properly. The hungry children of
this Province are not in such a position. They are not in the position to go out
and articulate their need the way the senior citizens in the Lakeside Home were
able to do.
They are not able to do it because they are beaten down by
poverty. They are unable to learn properly in school because they go to school
hungry. This government has been told time and time again by members on this
side of the House, by reports that have been commissioned, by nutritionists, by
social workers, by people involved in the school lunch programs that children in
this Province are going to school hungry. The Minister of Education knows it. He
knows it because his schoolteachers know it, the school principals know it; the
teachers who are working in special education know it, that the children who do
not do well in school in many cases are not doing well because of the results
and consequences of poverty in their homes and their inability to obtain a
proper diet, and to get a proper nutritious meal.
This is a bit of a hidden problem. It is a hidden problem
because hungry children do not march in the streets.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: I ask the hon. members opposite and the
government to address this problem and address it now.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in
support of this petition. It has been shown by statistics from the food banks
that 75,000 people in this Province use food banks. Forty thousand of these
people are children. The Patricia Canning report in 1996 and the Williams Royal
Commission report in 1992 both showed that learning is affected directly by
hunger. We are sending 40,000 of our children to school every day hungry. We are
perpetuating the cycle. It has been shown -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, this person opposite has not
spoken that often in the House. I wonder if we could all just quiet down and
listen to her a little bit.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Annette Stapenhorst, a known nutritionist,
has shown that it takes $125 a week for a family of four to have nutritious
food. Some families only have this amount for a month, after expenses. How, Mr.
Speaker, are they to be expected to give their children nutritious food to send
them to school? In schools where school lunches are available they are used
universally. The children in these schools take advantage of the school lunches,
and it is done with no discrimination to any of the children. I would like to
lend my support to the petition proposed by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi
Vidi.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Under Standing Order 23, I ask leave to introduce a motion
for the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public
importance, namely, the failure of the government to introduce economic
development in rural parts of the Province or to address key matters including
health care, education and out-migration.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: The particular Standing Order that the hon.
gentleman refers to - the first thing you have to prove is that there is an
urgency, and the second thing you have to prove, you have to show to His Honour
in order to allow -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
MR. TULK: There is no place on the Order Paper to allow
the debate on the issue with which the hon. gentleman is concerned. Mr. Speaker,
I do not have to remind you, but I suppose somebody has to remind the hon.
gentleman and it might as well be me, that under Standing Order No. 1, Address
in Reply, there is ample opportunity to debate any urgent matter that might
exist in this Province, even if it were of an urgent and pressing nature. I
would submit, Mr. Speaker, that the motion is not in order.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will recess to consider the matter
raised by the hon. member and report back shortly.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: I have carefully considered the matter that
the hon. Leader of the Opposition has made, and I want to point out to hon.
members that in an emergency debate, the key is the urgency of the debate and
not the matter itself, and in so ruling, I refer to a ruling made by Speaker
Ottenheimer in 1975, when a similar situation came to the House. He said: In my
opinion, the matter is obviously urgent, obviously of public importance but I do
not concur that there is urgency of the debate at this moment.
I would also refer to a ruling of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux,
given in the House of Commons and available in Hansard of July 9, 1969, and he
stated: The motion is acceptable only if it concerns a matter that has
unexpectedly become urgent and not if it concerns a situation that has prevailed
for some time. If I understand correctly, the hon. member's comments, the
question is no doubt both important and urgent, but it has prevailed for some
time and the debating of it today, would not possibly change the situation, so I
rule that the motion is not in order.
MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if, before moving to
Orders of the Day, there are a number of bills that we gave Notice of Motion
for, the bills are ready I think or they will be ready before five to be
distributed, so that members might have the opportunity to study them, to look
at them before we call them. I am asking leave of the House to do first reading;
that is not a debating reading that is a first reading so that the bills can be
distributed. I am asking if we have leave to - they are the bills that we gave
first notice of this, eight or ten, ten or twelve if I have leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to introduce
the bills?
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: How many bills, how many (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TULK: On a point of order?
AN HON. MEMBER: How many bills are you asking about
(inaudible)
MR. TULK: Well I am just asking that you give us leave to
have first reading, no debate on them, so that they are passed out and members
have them so that tomorrow they will appear on the Order Paper as second reading
so that we can debate -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: No, no. They are usually passed out at first
reading.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TULK: I am just asking if I have leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. Government House Leader. There was a notice of
motion given during that period today in the routine proceedings of a number of
bills. The hon. Government House Leader is now asking if he has unanimous
consent of the House to move on to the first reading of those bills, as I
understand him. Does he have -
MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, on a point
of order.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have no difficulty
giving leave to the Government House Leader to pass out these bills. I do not
know if he will get it but I have no problem personally but, can't the
Government House Leader give out copies of the bills anyway so we can all have
them?
MR. SPEAKER: The question is: Does he have -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order but the question that the hon.
member has raised and that the Chair is putting to the House today is: Does the
hon. member have leave to move to first reading of these bills?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: No?
MR. TULK: No leave?
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SULLIVAN: Other provinces have given thirty days
before the House is open.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TULK: All a bluff, the fact that they want to get
into the House, Mr. Speaker.
Order No. 2, Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill, "An Act
To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act". (Bill No. 10).
Now we will see how eager they are to go get back in the
House and debate the issues of the day.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The
Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act". (Bill No. 10)
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like today to
continue the debate on the second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The
Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act."
This amendment will provide for the establishment of
provisional reserves in our Province, allowing government to provide interim
protection to an area that is under active consideration for possible
designation as a wilderness reserve or as an ecological reserve.
Prior to designating such areas, already much of the work is
done before you reach the provisional reserve stage. The area's natural features
would have already been discussed, would have been determined. We would
determine what was unique, whether these areas would be unique or significant
enough to warrant protection. Already much of the work would have been done
before you reached the provisional stage. As well, WERAC - the Wilderness and
Ecological Reserves Council -, which advises on the suitability of provisional
reserves, would have already determined and advised government on areas that it
would wish to become provisional reserves.
The intent in designating an area which would be already
under consideration, to designate it as a provisional reserve, is simply to put
a moratorium on land that the advisory council and government have already
decided, or know, that it merits further consideration, study, assessment, and
needs further public consultation. Also, I should say that there is no other
legislative mechanism that can give the interim protection that the Wilderness
and Ecological Reserves Act, the protection that it can give in this area.
It is necessary to ensure that the resources of the area
under study are not compromised. Simply, we want to ensure that an area won't be
disturbed while we further study it. It is really important I think to do this,
because sometimes while we are assessing an area things could happen in an area.
Things like a cabin development, resource exploitation. I think all of us
realize the importance of the environment today and we would want to ascertain,
before we went and declared a provisional reserve, or an outright reserve, that
we know this area needs protection, and that we are protecting it provisionally
in the interim until it is studied completely.
This amendment also would further strengthen the strong
protection provisions already inherent in the wilderness and provisional
reserves act. It will further ensure that the unique and outstanding natural
heritage features of this Province are protected for present and future
generations. I think that this is what this is all about, protection of land for
the future. For those of us who live here now, but in particular for the future.
In areas in particular, looking at protecting it for waterfowl, for wildlife,
for flora and fauna.
In the past we have looked: at are there alternatives to
provisional reserve protection. We have considered several others. However,
neither of the alternatives that we considered are a comparable substitute for
ensuring the protection of candidate wilderness and ecological reserves. The two
alternatives that we looked at were Crown land reserves and public reserves.
We know that the Crown land reserve does not have legislative
standing. Basically it is an agreement between members of the interdepartmental
land use committee - I think it is called the ILUC - to honour, within a
particular area, a moratorium on Crown land applications for a defined period,
usually a maximum of one or two years. We know that this does not have the
legislative authority that this new act we are proposing today would.
Also, we looked at public reserves, and this would come under
the Crown lands act. The minister responsible may, by order, set aside and
reserve areas of less than 100 hectares for the purpose and period set out in
that order but of course the minister responsible may by order, with the
approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, set aside and reserve land in
excess of 100 hectares. Also this designation would not provide to my
department, the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the power to
ensure that the natural features of a reserve area are not compromised during
the interim period. So while we looked at alternatives - and the alternatives
would have been Crown land reserve and public reserve - neither of these would
give us the necessary power required that we are seeking under this bill,
amending the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act.
We also note that when the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves
Act was passed in 1980, that government clearly recognized that this was a
vehicle to sustain development in this Province. I think we all know and I
notice that in all of the zonal board reports that are coming in now, their
strategic plans, that they all recognize the importance of sustainable
development in our Province. They all highly recommend that everything we do in
this Province, whether it is land protection, whether it is in our forest,
almost any area of our economy, they are certainly recommending and especially I
would note in our fishery, that whatever we do in the future, whatever
development we propose should always take into account the principles of
sustainable development.
Government, as we are putting in place such legislation as we
are talking about here today, certainly believe this is a vehicle to achieve our
goals of sustainable development. A conscious decision was made to set aside
natural areas of our Province for the benefit, education and enjoyment of all of
the people of our Province, of all of Newfoundland and Labrador. We recognize
that in some cases this would entail foregoing future opportunities, resource
opportunities in some areas and we know that we are, if we are to protect for
future generations, we must assess all of our Province to determine which areas,
in particular when it relates to protection of our wildlife, our flora, our
fauna and our waterfowl, that we have to look at all areas that need protection.
Under the wildlife reserves for instances, the minister
responsible may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council,
make regulations to set aside reserves in which wildlife or a specific class of
wildlife may not be hunted, taken or killed. The primary purpose of a wildlife
reserve is to protect a specific wildlife population. It does not necessarily
focus on protection of the natural habitant but more or less refers to the
protection of wildlife. This is why the former Avalon Wildlife Reserve was
established in 1986, as a wilderness reserve under the Wilderness and Ecological
Reserves Act.
Obviously, a wildlife reserve would not be appropriate for
the interim protection of natural features of our eco-regions reserves, fossil
reserves, rare plant reserves, other than a specific population of wildlife but
all of these pieces of legislation are important for protection in our Province.
The provisional reserve designation, which we are talking about here today,
provides a very strong interim protection measure for sites considered a
priority under our Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act. In essence, it
prevents any further land alienation or development activity - in particular in
areas such as cottage development and ATVs, et cetera - which may prevent or
seriously jeopardize the future establishment of a reserve as a full reserve. So
what we are saying is all of these things must be considered, debated and
consulted about before we move beyond the provisional stage into the full
reserve stage.
It has been determined that there is no other suitable
legislative mechanism available that gives the high level of protection that was
previously offered by the provisional reserve status. This protection is
essential for ensuring that a site under active consideration is not compromised
during the period when the advisory council, government, and the public
undertake all of its consultative processes. Both the Wilderness and Ecological
Reserves Act, and the Parks and Natural Areas Division, have concluded that the
provisional reserve stage is of the utmost importance.
The Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Act was passed by the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on May 28, 1980, and the main purpose of
this act, that I would like to read here, is to set aside natural areas in the
Province for the benefit, education and enjoyment of present and future
generations. More specifically the Act provides for the protection and
management of selected natural areas from which economic, social, recreational
and scientific benefits may accrue if they remain in an unaltered natural state.
Such areas are reserved from industrial and resource extraction activities to
ensure that their inherent natural heritage values remain intact for the
enjoyment of future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
The act, actually, is regarded as one of Canada's premiere
pieces of natural area protection legislation, and this amendment that we are
debating today is all a part of that process. Its particular strengths are the
requirement for a rigorous review process, including inter-agency and public
consultations.
Some of the public consultations, when an area is designated
a provisional reserve, have already taken place because many times it is the
public that comes forward to government, or comes forward to the Wilderness and
Ecological Reserves group to ask that we consider an area. Many times it is a
town council, sometimes it is a conservation group or an environment group, so
it is a very open-ended process. Also, the independence of the Wilderness and
Ecological Reserves Council, which reports to Cabinet through the minister, and
the requirement for a thorough review, including public consultations, before
changing or disestablishing a reserve, and I think that is an important point to
talk about also.
We often worry greatly that while we are putting lands under
protection, is it possible that if in the future they were needed for other
purposes that were designed, that the public had decided were of great
importance to the land, that you can disestablish, but I think that you would
only disestablish for emergency reasons, or reasons which were of very, very
great importance to us now or to future generations.
The act provides for the establishment of two types of
reserves: wilderness reserves, which I have described in a few short sentences
just a while ago, which provide for the continued interaction of living things
and their environment in larger, undisturbed, or relatively undisturbed,
wilderness areas.
Traditional activities such as hunting and fishing are
allowed to continue, and I know that many times when people think about reserves
they think, `Oh, there is absolutely nothing that can be done in a reserve', but
it depends on the type of reserve. I would like to say that we do not have
reserves in which absolutely nothing can be done.
In wilderness reserves, many groups are often very, very
worried that nothing can occur there, cabin development or anything else. It
depends on what is decided as the reserve is put in place, and many, many
traditional activities are able to continue.
Ecological reserves are usually smaller areas set aside as
representative of a natural region, or an eco system, or protect a rare or
unique species or natural phenomena. I think the summer when we announced that
we would like to make Burnt Cape on the Northern Peninsula a provisional reserve
it was for protecting of rare species. Actually, the designation that was sought
there initially came from geologists who were in the area, who also had
knowledge of rare flora and fauna, who looked at the fauna of that area and then
asked if Memorial and other universities would study it. When it was studied, it
was determined that there is in fact a species there that is found nowhere else
in the world and at that stage the community and many experts agreed that this
was an area that certainly needed protection and they have been lobbying strong
and hard since then. So, this is one of our priorities this year in bringing
forward this piece of legislation to enable that this area will be made a
provisional reserve and hopefully will go on to be a full reserve after much
public consultation has been done in that area.
I would also like to speak a little bit about the advisory
council that assists government in these endeavours. The Wilderness and
Ecological Reserves Act provides for the establishment of a Wilderness and
Ecological Reserves Advisory Council, for the purpose of advising Cabinet,
through the minister, on all matters in relation to the establishment,
management and termination of reserves and for the better administration of the
act.
Council members are appointed by the Cabinet. There are
eleven members with at least six representing the public and members may be
reappointed and the advisory council, I would like to read out to you, has
several generalized responsibilities. The examination of areas of the Province
to determine which are suitable for establishment of a reserve and the council
of course may also accept recommendations from the public in relation to the
establishment of or a change in a reserve and this is exactly what I just
described was true in the case of Burnt Cape or Burnt Island as it is commonly
known.
Also, they inform and seek comment from all levels of
government on areas determined as suitable for establishment as either a
wilderness or an ecological reserve. They also undertake the public consultative
process. They advise the Provincial Cabinet to establish provisional reserves or
in fact, full reserve status and I understand could also make comment on the
need to establish emergency reserves. They may make recommendations to Cabinet
on any proposed change in a reserve management plan or in fact can make
recommendations to us about the act.
The advisory council meets at various times during the year
to review proposals and to determine priorities and I should say that the
advisory council is a representative of all Newfoundland and Labrador and they
meet at least quarterly, usually on an annual basis.
Also, I would like to make a few statements about the reserve
establishment process. The establishment of a reserve includes an extensive
interdepartmental government review and public participation process. The
process as illustrated could mean that reserve proposals are initially reviewed
extensively by provincial and federal government departments and/or agencies.
Following these reviews, adjustments and changes are then
made by the Wilderness and Ecological Review Advisory Council and they
facilitate recommendations of provisional status to Cabinet process. If
provisional status that we are talking about here today is granted, then the
true public participation process begins and this consists of information
sessions and meeting with individuals and groups in the communities that would
be surrounding the proposed reserve.
This process then is followed by formal public hearings that
are always very well advertised as required by sections of the act. Then after
this the results of the government reviews and public hearings are then
considered by the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Advisory Council. The
council then makes recommendations to Cabinet through my ministry for a final
decision on full reserve status. At the outcome of the process the reserve is
either established or the proposal is rejected and provisional status can be
revoked. Usually, though, I have to say that the process that is put in place
would usually mean that the reserve is established. In most instances the amount
of public consultation that even goes in before the reserve status - before the
provisional status - would lead on then into a permanent reserve status.
This act that we are discussing also provides for the
establishment of an emergency reserve. This can be done by the minister if an
endangered area is under examination by the Advisory Council and has been
determined to be suitable for reserve establishment.
I should say that while recognizing the importance of
preserving natural areas, the act also seeks to ensure that the areas will be so
chosen that they have as little impact as possible on industrial development. I
would like to say that this is often a concern of resource groups and of mining
groups, and of groups who look at our land and at the moment see that some areas
are being considered for designation. So I think it is important that when we
look at areas like this that we would then move in a timely fashion towards
either recognizing that it will be a full status reserve or it won't be, and I
think that is very important for the future development of the Province.
The act ensures that by providing for a rigorous review
process before reserves are established, and by creating the Advisory Council to
advise Cabinet on all matters relating to reserves, that due process is always
looked at, that we are protecting lands that need protecting but we are also
having a full public discussion on whether an area should be reserved or whether
it should be considered for other activities for industrial development.
I have a table here that provides a listing of reserves
established under our WERAC and I think all of you, as you note, would realize
that all over this Province government has endeavoured to ensure that precious
areas of our Province are indeed protected. One, of course, that is very
important not just from a protection point of view but also from a tourism point
of view, is the Cape St. Mary's Ecological Reserve which was established in
1983. This is a seabird breeding colony, and in particular a very important
over-wintering site. This reserve is a little over 1,000 hectares.
The Funk Island Ecological Reserve, which was one of our
first reserves that was put in place in 1983, is also a seabird breeding colony
which is about 20 hectares.
The Hare Bay Island Ecological Reserve was also put in place
in 1983, and this is an eider duck breeding colony which is 442 hectares.
The Gannet Island Ecological Reserve, also put in place in
1983, is a seabird breeding colony that is 202 hectares.
The Witless Bay Islands Ecological Reserve is a seabird
breeding colony also put in place in 1983, which is 141 hectares.
One that we hear quite a bit about from our tourists, the
Avalon Wilderness Reserve, put in place in 1986, is a caribou reserve and also
protects several very important ecosystems in our Province, and this is a rather
large reserve. It is 107 hectares, and very, very important to this area.
Then we have Mistaken Point Ecological Reserve that was put
in place in 1987, and the special feature is the protection of fossils. This is
295 hectares.
Another fairly large reserve is the Watt's Point Ecological
Reserve put in place in 1990, and this protects rare plants and special
ecosystems. This one is 3,090 hectares.
Table Point Ecological Reserve was put in place in 1990. This
also protects fossils and is 116 hectares, one of our smaller reserves.
Then, of course, the Bay du Nord Wilderness Reserve, which
was put in place in 1990, is this Province's largest reserve at this point. It
is 289,500 hectares and this protects waterfowl breeding sites and in particular
caribou and many other aspects as well. Then the Hawke Hills ecological reserve
was put in place in 1992, and this is a representative plant community it has as
its special feature and this is 131 hectares, a relatively small reserve. Then
Fortune Head ecological reserve was put in place in 1992 and it was during this
past few months actually, Mr. Speaker, that I visited this area and its special
feature is for fossil protection and this area is 221 hectares.
Then we have the West Brook ecological reserve that was put
in place in 1993 which is a Red Pine site and this is 1,074 hectares. Then we
have the Baccalieu Island ecological reserve which was put in place in 1995 one
of our most recent, and this is a sea bird breeding colony on an island that is
538 hectares. King George the IV ecological reserve, is the last ecological
reserve that was proclaimed by our government last year in 1996, and this is a
wet land, delta, waterfowl breeding site that has its special protection
features and this area is 1,841 hectares.
Now, we have two areas that are seeking provisional
ecological reserve status. This would be in Redfir Lake ecological reserve that
has been seeking this status since 1995 and this is a Jack Pine site which is
8,233 hectares and of course, the most recent that I have just described to you
is the Burnt Island or Burnt Cape some people call it, ecological reserve that
was announced this summer in 1997 as a rare plant site with 350 hectares.
Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline some of
the benefits of protected areas and I think, most of us would know many of the
benefits. The perceived benefits of protective areas are usually limited to
wildlife enhancement and tourism. The more fundamental goal and far-reaching
benefits of natural protected areas include, the protected natural areas
provision are a fundamental component of any sustainable development strategy,
and I think in this Province, at this time, we certainly recognize that this is
very, very important to our future, that anything we do should be done from a
sustainable point of view.
Protected natural areas provide an insurance policy against
the loss of important ecosystems - we should environmentally accept developments
that live up to their expectations. Protected natural areas provide a full range
of ecological opportunities for future generations and I think this is one of
the m