Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 24 November 2005 (45th General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLV No. 36)
2005-11-24
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November 24, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV
No. 36
The House met at 1: 30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
This afternoon we are very pleased to welcome to the public galleries twelve
students from the St. John's Learning Centre, with their instructor Ms Ann
Buckle.
Welcome to our House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Members' statements this afternoon are as follows: the
hon. the Member for the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde; the hon. the Member
for the District of Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for District of St. John's
Centre; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the
Member for the District of Humber Valley; and the hon. the Member for the
District of Labrador West.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Trinity-Bay de
Verde.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, last week, I attended a function at Baccalieu Collegiate in Old
Perlican for the launch of high-speed Internet that will connect thirty
communities in my district to the global economy. Approximately 6,500 residents,
including businesses, will be able to avail of this service.
Mr. Speaker, a world of opportunity has now unfolded. The implementation of
this high-speed Internet will enrich the educational experience of our students
and educators alike. As well, the marketing and trading opportunities and the
expansion of business ideas is limitless. The commercial potential that will be
provided for our business community is unimaginable.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Eastern School Board District,
Persona, Industry Canada, and the Mariners Resource Opportunities Network Inc.
for sponsoring the advancement of broadband in my District of Trinity-Bay de
Verde.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to quote Ms Gillian Lockyer, a Level
III student of Baccalieu Collegiate, who spoke of what this opportunity meant to
her. I feel that Gillian certainly described what this means to our area when
she said, "I am extremely grateful that rural areas of Newfoundland and
Labrador are getting benefits such as Broadband to expand our possibilities for
the future. I believe this is the beginning of something bigger than we have
ever imagined."
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to Staff
Cadet Ashley Tarrant of Lawn on being selected HMCS Acadia's new Chief of Sea
Operations this past summer.
The seventeen-year-old cadet from the Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps 237
Truxtun in Lawn was appointed to the position with a promotion to Chief Petty
Officer Second Class following an extensive interview and selection process.
As Chief of Sea Operations at HMCS Acadia, Canada's largest Sea Cadet
Training Centre located in Cornwallis, Nova Scotia, Chief Tarrant was
responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Sea Operations department and
for the supervision and administration of thirty staff cadets at the training
centre.
Chief Petty Officer Tarrant, presently the Coxswain of RCSCC237 Truxtun, is
the daughter of Maurice and Charmaine Tarrant of Lawn. Chief Petty Officer
Tarrant graduated Level III at Holy Name of Mary Academy in Lawn with honours
and is presently in her first year of studies at Memorial University of
Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating
Chief Petty Officer Tarrant and extend her best wishes in all future endeavours.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's Centre.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure this past fall of
participating in the eighth anniversary of the Unveiling of the Merchant Navy
Memorial.
Each year, September 3, is recognized as Merchant Navy Veterans Day. The
monument is located at the main entrance to the Marine Institute on Ridge Road
and was erected to commemorate the men and women who lost their lives in World
War II. St. John's Harbour was the home port for naval vessels which provided
convoy protection on the North Atlantic. This port was a safe haven for torpedo
damaged ships. Crews from torpedoed ships of the Allied Merchant Navies were
landed here found a haven of rest until they returned to their home ports or
shipped out as crew on other ships.
Merchant Navies played a critical role in both World Wars, transporting war
materials, troops, fuel and ammunition throughout the world. The ships were
called on to assist in evacuation and troop landings. An estimated 60,000 Allied
Merchant Navy men and women lost their lives assuring a reliable flow of goods
across the Atlantic.
The Merchant Navy was a volunteer organization. Without uniforms to identify
them on shore, these crews did not enjoy the special treatment and respect that
uniformed officers could expect.
On Remembrance Day every year, we honour our war veterans and those who
sacrificed their lives. The Merchant Navy is seldom included in these services,
however, due in part to the non-military status of the Navy. It is time to
recognize the contribution made to the war by the Merchant Navy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this House today to recognize Mr. Philip Lundrigan of Spaniard's
Bay, who was named the recipient of the Glen Hillson Award for Excellence at the
general meeting of the Canadian Treatment Action Council in Moncton.
Canadian Treatment Action Council, the CTAC, is a national organization
serving the needs of people living with HIV/AIDS. CTAC promotes informed public
policy, public education, as well as awareness on issues that impact on access
to treatment and health care for people living with HIV/AIDS.
Mr. Lundrigan is a founding member of the CTAC . He served as Secretary of
the Board from 1996 to 2001 and is Vice-Chair of the Board from 2002 to 2005. As
the provincial representative to the CTAC Council for Newfoundland and Labrador,
Philip founded the Newfoundland and Labrador People with AIDS Network.
Mr. Speaker, Philip Lundrigan's outstanding contribution to improving the
health and lives of people with HIV/AIDS nationally is matched by his equally
important work at home here in Newfoundland and Labrador. This award has only
been received previously by the hon. Allan Rock.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in
congratulating Mr. Philip Lundrigan, recipient of the Glen Hillson Award of
Excellence.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the accomplishments
of the students of Xavier Junior High in Deer Lake for their efforts in their
Clean and Green project. Their achievements received national attention in early
October when the town received the Maglin Youth Involvement Project Award
sponsored by the Communities in Bloom Program.
Xavier's schoolyard naturalization project received $7,000 in funding from
Clarica and involved over 250 students in constructing benches, flower and rock
gardens, and planting various trees and shrubs around the school grounds.
Encouraged by support from local businesses and the Deer Lake Community
Improvements Committee, students broadened their efforts beyond the schoolyard,
organizing initiatives such annual beach and town centre cleanups.
These young men and women offer a shining example of dedication to their
community and concern for their environment. I ask all members to join with me
in congratulating them for their tremendous accomplishments.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate teacher, Paul Smith and his Grade 7 Tech-Ed
Class at JRS Middle School in Wabush.
During National Bullying Awareness Week the students and Mr. Smith undertook
a project, from scratch, to make brilliant red stop signs with the main slogan:
Stop Bullying, on top with a message underneath. Some of the messages include:
Appreciate Goodness; Reach out to a Person in Need; Understand the Other Side;
and Be Nice to Someone.
Mr. Speaker, we hear all too often the problems many students face from
bullying, sometimes with tragic outcomes. It is certainly good to hear of
students and teachers dealing with this problem head on and in their own
environment.
Mr. Speaker, the signs will become permanent fixture's in the school by
being posted throughout the hallways as a constant reminder that JRS Middle
School is determined to be a bully-free zone where students respect each other.
This is important, Mr. Speaker, because when initiatives like this take place in
a school setting they tend to carry over to the outside school hours, improving
the social life for all students.
Mr. Speaker, every person - man, woman and child - has a right to a
bully-free environment. I ask all members of the House of Assembly to join me in
applauding the leadership of Mr. Paul Smith and his Grade 7 class at JRS and
wish the best to all students during this academic year.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker would like to extend a welcome as well this
afternoon to some other visitors. I notice in looking around the public gallery,
to my left I see Mr. Scott Simms, the MP for Bonavista-Gander-Grand
Falls-Windsor. Welcome to our House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: In the Speaker's gallery this afternoon we have a very
special guest. I am pleased to welcome Ms Ruth Flowers, the interim Speaker for
the new District of Nunatsiavut. Ms Flowers is visiting our Assembly in
preparation for her new role with the new Inuit government. As some members
already know, the legislative capital of Nunatsiavut will be in Hopedale, while
the administrative capital will be in Nain. The new government and new assembly
assume their new roles on Thursday, December 1. We wish Ms Flowers, the new
Speaker, all the best in her position and I have assured her that all members of
this House and our professional staff will assist her in any manner we can.
Again, congratulations Ms Flowers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Ms Flowers is accompanied by Marilyn Butland, with Perry
& Butland Communications.
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today to inform hon.
members on the signing of a federal-provincial agreement that will bring major
investment into community infrastructure throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
This morning I was joined by Scott Simms, MP for Bonavista-Gander-Grand
Falls-Windsor and Wayne Ruth, President of the Newfoundland and Labrador
Federation of Municipalities to announce the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador
Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund Agreement. This agreement will introduce a
total of $84 million and will be a cost-shared initiative between the federal,
provincial and municipal governments. The provincial investment will be in a
range of $28 million to $35 million over the next four years.
In order for our communities to develop and prosper we must have reliable
infrastructure. The provincial, federal and municipal partnership demonstrated
by today's announcement speaks to a long-term commitment from all levels of
government. Our combined goal is to strengthen infrastructure throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, reaching this agreement was not an easy process. The Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador insisted that program guidelines include water
system expansions and upgrades. We also had to negotiate changes to the draft
agreement that would give this government flexibility to assume part of the
municipal share of costs where warranted. Our insistence on these terms resulted
in a negotiation process that was lengthy and difficult but in the end a
tremendous success.
Municipalities will play a major role in the distribution of the funding
announced today. The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities will
give strategic direction and identify priorities under this program.
Mr. Speaker, we are looking forward to working with municipalities as
government continues to do everything it can to guide communities towards
economic prosperity. We will continue to assist communities to identify and
implement long-term solutions.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the member for an advance copy of his statement.
Anytime that you have a joint arrangement, like you have here between the
provincial government, the federal government and the municipalities, for new
infrastructure in the Province, it is great. I had the opportunity myself to be
involved in some of these.
In the minister's statement it says over the four years, but I have a
backgrounder which says that it will run from the signing of the agreement and
will end on March 31, 2012. So, is it four or seven? If it is four, then
obviously there is a larger amount of money to be spent over the four-year
period, but if it is seven then it is somewhat less. Having said that, any new
dollars that go into the Province, into the municipalities, is a benefit.
In another paragraph he was talking about where the government insisted on
some flexibility to assume some of the costs of the municipal councils. That is
great. Being a former minister myself, there were programs where we helped
smaller municipalities, like under the ministry of HRE, such as in the Town of
Burlington where we picked up about 90 per cent of the municipality's costs.
We did it for many other smaller communities around. That is the only way that
the program can work. I see it is important that the minister has agreed that
will continue, and I want to applaud him on that particular part.
Anytime that we have new money going into the Province in new infrastructure,
that is great, and I want to thank the minister for that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I, too, thank the minister for
an advance copy of his ministerial statement.
I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is good news when municipalities
are going to be afforded the type of money that will allow them to do the things
that are needed within their communities.
For a long time now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard many communities around this
Province - I think it was over 200 - who are on boil water orders, no fit water
to consume. That is something, Mr. Speaker, that has to change. We all know what
happened in place like Ontario where we have had disasters associated with unfit
drinking water. These are things that the municipalities will now hopefully be
able to do.
There is also the issue, Mr. Speaker, of raw sewage going out into all of the
harbours and bays around this Province. It is something that is obviously a
disaster for many of the communities around.
With initiatives like this, Mr. Speaker, hopefully some of these things can
be held in check and improved and cleaned up.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My first question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works.
Mr. Speaker, two years ago the Town of Botwood wrote a letter to the former
Minister of Transportation and Works regarding port divestiture in that town.
They did not get a meeting with the former minister or receive what they
consider to be a satisfactory response to their letter. We have been asked by
the Town of Botwood to ask the current Minister of Transportation and Works:
Will you give the commitment today that you will arrange a meeting with the town
to discuss this port divestiture?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Exploits raised this issue with me last week,
shortly after becoming minister. I have had a discussion with the deputy
minister and assistant deputy minister on this matter, Mr. Speaker. To my
understanding, there was some problem with a letter that had been sent to the
Town of Botwood and the - (inaudible) town, but the federal government as it
relates to the port divestiture. We have had a discussion on it. I have
indicated to the Member for Exploits that I have no problem meeting with
representatives from Botwood on this matter; however, Mr. Speaker, we are
redrafting a letter right now and hopefully the letter will be satisfactory and
a meeting may not be required.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you for the response, Minister.
Mr. Speaker, the rest of my questions are to the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the federal government announced -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. REID: I guess the former Fisheries Minister, the Minister of
Transportation and Works, will answer these. It is rather confusing here at
times, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. REID: Yesterday, the federal government announced their intentions
related to the income trust in this country. Now that the federal government has
brought more certainty to the issue, does the minster feel, or has he been given
any indication, that FPI will move forward with their income trust proposal?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Following the passage of the legislation earlier this year, lawyers for the
department and for FPI have been negotiating the implementation of the term
sheet into a contract. That matter is not completed as yet. We have not heard
from the solicitors for FPI since they announced that they were going to do a
review. So we have not heard from FPI, at least I am not aware of any
communications from FPI, with respect to the income trust since the federal
Finance Minister's announcement this morning.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
You wonder why we get confused about who we should be asking questions of.
Mr. Speaker, this one is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Last spring, the Minister of Fisheries and the Premier implemented a Raw
Material Sharing system without any consultation and against the wishes of
harvesters in this Province. As a result, the crab fishery was late starting and
it was one of the reasons that contributed to an overall decrease in the landed
value of fish products in this Province by some $200 million. The Premier, as a
result of protests at the time, finally committed to establish a committee,
headed by Richard Cashin, to examine the RMS, Raw Material Sharing system. The
Premier also stated that he would abide by the recommendation of Mr. Cashin.
I ask the minister: Will the government honour this commitment, and has the
government received a preliminary report from Mr. Cashin?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yes, we will honour the recommendations that will be brought
forward by Mr. Cashin; and, unless it has happened since I left the Petten
Building to move over to the West Block, I am not aware of any preliminary
report being provided to government by Mr. Cashin. We anticipate Mr. Cashin's
report within a week or two.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, after talking to hundreds of fish harvesters and
some of the plant owners in the Province, it is my understanding that Mr. Cashin
will recommend the scrapping of this disastrous and ill-conceived Raw Material
Sharing plan in favour of a strengthened Final Offer Selection model that was
implemented by, I think, the Minister of Fisheries, John Efford, back in 1997.
I ask the minister: If this is what Mr. Cashin recommends, will the
government or the minister force processors to participate in this model the
same way as this government forced harvesters to participate in the RMS system?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as the member might well remember, the RMS system, whether he
considers it ill-conceived or not, came about on his watch and on the watch of
the person who came immediately after him, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au
Clair. It came forward in a couple of reports, both commissioned by this
Opposition when they were the government. That is where Raw Material Sharing
came from, after very extensive consultations by Mr. Dunne, Mr. Jones -
MR. REID: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. TAYLOR: - and others, and Mr. Vardy and so on and so on.
Mr. Speaker, we said we would honour Mr. Cashin's recommendations. We will
honour Mr. Cashin's recommendations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister, I can guarantee you that no one on this side of the
House ever came up with the Raw Material Sharing plan, and I will guarantee you
there was no one on this side of the House who forced it upon the fishermen in
this Province against their wishes. There is only one minister who can take
credit for that and he is the one who was just speaking.
Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Cashin recommends the Final Offer Selection model, as I
am apt to believe that he will: Will the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister
of Labour have to change the legislation to implement it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we do not know if we will have to change the legislation. We do
not know if we will have to create a new Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining
Act. We do not know what we will have to do until we get Mr. Cashin's report.
When we get Mr. Cashin's report we will undertake to take whatever measures
and whatever legislative amendments are required to bring about the changes that
Mr. Cashin recommends. That is it. We said it last spring, we said it here
previously this week. I said it a couple of minutes ago. I am saying it again
now and if he asks me the same question again, I will say it again, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister is not telling us anything new when he says he does not know
much.
Mr. Speaker, under the old Final Offer Selection model, processors could back
out of the model by giving sufficient notice to government. All they had to do
was say we do not want in the model, give sufficient notice and they could back
out of the model.
Will the minister ensure that if the legislation is changed so that
processors will not be able to back out of the program, throwing the fishery
back into chaos like he did last year?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when we get the report we will act on the report, unlike the
previous Administration who got reports and did not act on them. Mr. Speaker,
when we get reports we act on them. When Mr. Cashin provides us with the report,
we will take the report and we will implement it. Whatever is required to make
it possible to implement that report, Mr. Speaker, that is what will be done.
That is what the Premier said last spring, that is what I said last spring, that
is what all the government said last spring. That is what I said just now. I
said it previously. If he asks me the same question in fifteen minutes time, I
will say it again because he obviously cannot hear.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, he said a lot of things
that he was going to do. He actually said to the fish harvesters of this
Province that he was going to consult with them. We know what happened to that
commitment he made.
Mr. Speaker, any legislative change that is required to get our fishery open
in April of next year will have to come to this House of Assembly before the
session closes for Christmas, as the House, as we all know, will not be
scheduled to come back until the end of March.
I ask the Minister: Will you assure those involved in the fishing industry,
the most important industry in our Province, will you assure the people involved
in that industry that any necessary legislative changes, changes that will
ensure the fishery opens in a timely and orderly manner, will be done before
this session closes for Christmas?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is up to the Opposition when they close the House and it is
up to government when we call the House. So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any
undertaking that we will provide the legislation before Christmas, but if we
require legislative amendments in order to bring this season about, I am sure
that they will be done.
Mr. Speaker, if we have to come back in January, we will come back in
January; if we have to come back in February, we will come back in February; if
we have to come back in March, we will come back in March. We will be ready to
do the legislative amendments if required, Mr. Speaker. The question is: Will
the Opposition be available?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: You don't have to worry about that, I say to the minister.
You will not have to worry about that. But, I am glad to see that you said you
would open the House immediately if it was required so that we can get the
fishery open in a timely and orderly fashion next spring, because we certainly
do not want to see a repeat of what you caused last spring.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the disastrous fishery experienced
by many this year, partially created by the former minister, the minister who is
answering the questions today, many harvesters and crew members have left the
Province while others are facing a very difficult winter with little or no
income.
I ask the minister: What measures is your government taking to deal with this
must unfortunate circumstance?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, in the fishing industry in this
Province, as is the case in other jurisdictions in Atlantic Canada and other
jurisdictions in this world, if he wanted to read the editorial in the Telegram
this morning, I think it was this morning, he might see that very similar
situation is being encountered in Australia.
Mr. Speaker, this situation, while he may want to blame it on RMS - and he
did say that it was only partially because of RMS - the fact of the matter is,
the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador is undergoing major structural change.
Mr. Speaker, what has to be done is both levels of government engage in an early
retirement program, a rationalization program for the fleet, as has been
indicated and supported by the FFAW. Mr. Speaker, those are the types of things
that have to be done to get long-term, lasting benefits for the people in the
industry, not just short-term stop gap measures that the previous Administration
is good at.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. REID: I thank the minister for his answer because he just said that
he is doing nothing to help these people through this winter. That is what you
just said. You are looking for a long-term solution. You were talking about that
when you were over here in Opposition three years ago, or two years, you are
still talking about it.
Mr. Speaker, in my discussions with fish harvesters and crew members, they
are suggesting that an extension to employment benefits may be an acceptable
solution to the problems they are experiencing today; not tomorrow or next year,
or ten years from now, today. They think that is an acceptable solution.
I ask the minister: Have you or your government made any representation to
the federal government on their behalf with regard to that issue?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have made representation to the federal government on
adjustment measures for the fishery, generally. We have talked to the federal
government about the need for a fleet rationalization program. We have talked to
the federal government about a need for an early retirement program to bring
lasting benefits to the people in the industry and do a lasting rationalization
and a lasting restructuring of the industry. That is what we have done.
As a former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I heard him on many
occasions, Mr. Speaker, indicate how difficult and virtually impossible it is to
get an extension to E.I. benefits. The same type of request was made several
years ago when ice hampered the startup of the lobster fishery on the West Coast
and he would only have to refer back to his response at that time to find out
the answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transportation and Works must not
read his own accident reports. He again quoted in today's paper, stating that
the highway equipment from Placentia broke down that morning when his own
department's accident report - which I have a copy of - indicates the
equipment broke down four days earlier, on November 9, and left the repair shop
on November 15. This piece of equipment was never on the road November 14, as
the minister indicated.
With current ice control needs and winter storms possibly any day, can the
minister tell the House if the entire fleet is now ready, parts available on
site at depots, and all winter equipment and staff in place, not the 80 per cent
the minister was so proudly claiming?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the vehicle was on the road. Now, he can say what he likes. The
vehicle was on the road. I have the report from the supervisor saying that. My
assistant deputy minister talked to the operator of the vehicle this morning.
The vehicle left the highway's depot in Placentia at 7:30, based on an
assessment of the road that was done between 7:00 and 7:15 when ice was found;
not as was indicated by the Member for Bay of Island yesterday and again today.
The vehicle was on the road, Mr. Speaker.
Now, the shop repair report that he refers to indicates that there was
maintenance done on the vehicle on the ninth and tenth, Mr. Speaker. The
equipment that needed to be replaced on the fifteenth, as I understand it, was
the snowplow; the wing and the strobe lights. That is not required, the last
time I checked, for sanding and salting operations, Mr. Speaker. The vehicle was
on the road.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I just say to the minister, the truck never even
left the shop until November 15 th .
MR. TAYLOR: Wrong! Wrong! (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. JOYCE: It is right on the report when it left the shop. Obviously,
Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, that all the equipment is not ready.
I had calls as late as this morning indicating that essential equipment is
still broken down and they are still waiting for parts to arrive and be
installed. This morning I received calls from three different depots.
Can the minister explain why parts are not being stocked at maintenance
depots and why equipment is not ready at this time of year when snow and ice
cause serious safety threats.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, our fleet of snow clearing and ice control equipment is at a
state of readiness equivalent to, or in excess of, what it has been in recent
years. I cannot speak for going back in history very far, but certainly over the
past five or six years. Based on what has been shown to me, based on the
percentages available, right now, Mr. Speaker, we are practically at 100 per
cent.
AN HON. MEMBER: Practically.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, well you are never at 100 per cent, Mr. Speaker,
vehicles break down. I drove back across the Island three weeks ago in a car and
I lost the motor three miles west of Whitbourne, and I didn't know there was
anything wrong with it before that. These things happen, Mr. Speaker. That
happens.
Mr. Speaker, our fleet is ready, our employees are back with the exception of
twenty-seven people. Seven of those people, as I understand it, out of over 400,
are loader operators and twenty are people who are being replaced as a result of
people who retired or left the department over the past year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister was saying that everybody
was back. Why are we now, in the middle of winter, waiting to call back
twenty-seven people? Obviously the department is just not ready.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, staff in the department are calling us daily to
confirm that the ill-conceived winterization of depots compromised the summer
maintenance program and prevented equipment from being ready for the winter
season. Mayors have complained, and media have reported, equipment still waiting
for parts and repairs.
Will the minister, on behalf of the safety of the Province, commit to
undertaking a review of this ill-conceived winterization plan and commit to
reinstating all depots on a year-round basis?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I just don't know how hard it is to get something through the
Member for Bay of Island's head. I don't know how hard it is to get it
through.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, the closure of thirteen depots in the summer
has nothing to do with the equipment that is available in the winter. The people
who repair the vehicles - the mechanics, the equipment technicians - are people
who are on the job right now, who were on the job this summer, who were on the
job last fall, and were on the job last summer.
Those are the facts. Now, he can spin it however he would like, and he can
try to make mountains out of molehills, and whatever, but the fact of the matter
is that the people who repaired the equipment in 2004, 2003 and 2002, in July,
August, September, October and November, were on the job in 2005.
Mr. Speaker, those are the facts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just have one question for the Minister Responsible for Labour.
Minister, the workers and the economy of the Stephenville area have been on
hold for months while we await the future regarding their mill. I am wondering
if the minister has received any requests from either the company, Abitibi, or
from the union, to assist with the stalled talks up to this point; and, if not,
are you prepared to undertake that you would contact the company and the union
to at least offer whatever assistance your department and your officials might
in trying to unravel this most unfortunate but serious situation?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I think it was some time late last week that a representative
from the union contacted our office and asked what would the process be of
asking for a mediator or arbitrator if it came to the point where, between the
unionized employees and the representatives and the company officials, they felt
that they would require it.
I informed, on behalf of the government, the unionized representatives what
the process would be if they requested a mediator through this process; I
explained the process to them. They appreciated that and, to my knowledge, they
have not availed of that request, or they have not made that request to the
department yet.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Education.
There has been a report prepared for the Eastern School District covering
issues such as zoning, busing, school reorganization, a very comprehensive and
major report which I understand the school district has had since the end of
August or early September.
Is the minister prepared to make this report public and available to the
people of the Province as it affects schools on the Avalon, Burin and Bonavista
Peninsulas, some 70 per cent of the school children in the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there is a comprehensive report being done by a
consultant, and I haven't had a copy of this report up to this time. The
report will be tabled at the next school board meeting, Eastern School Board
meeting, which I understand is scheduled for December 7. As it is tabled at that
meeting, which will be a public meeting, it will become a public report and will
be available to anyone who wants a copy of that report.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the Minister of Education advise the House how many members of her
Administration, or her caucus, have been briefed on this report by the Director
of the Eastern School District, who was a former Tory candidate in the last
election?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an exact number of how many
officials within the Department of Education may have been working with the
consultant or have been briefed on the report. I would understand that they must
be providing information, working with the consultant. I am completely unaware
if any caucus members have been briefed on the contents of that report at this
time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister advise how it is that the Minister of Municipal Affairs
could have a meeting with school councils in his district, talk about this
report, and practically announce a new school for his district based on the
findings of this report?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, based upon what happened in the past with the education reform
with the Opposition, which were the government at the time, there was nothing
but mass confusion happening with respect to education reform.
I had no briefing, Mr. Speaker, none at all whatsoever, with respect to the
document that the member refers to. I called a meeting, and had a meeting last
night with four school councils in my district, telling them that this report
will be forthcoming, that it will be made public some time in December, as I
know of, and that I wanted to get together with them after the report was made
public to address the concerns and work with them to address any concerns that
may be made public at that point in time.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and advise the group that he had met
on two occasions, at least, with the school director.
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Education -
MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: As the hon. the minister would know, we usually do not take
points of order during Question Period. Maybe I would suggest that we could
defer and let the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi ask another question.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The question was whether the director had met with Members of the House of
Assembly, in particular the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but I would like to
ask the minister: Will she confirm that her government's policy is to support
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: Will the minister confirm that she and her government stand
by the policy of community schools in rural Newfoundland -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: - and neighbourhood schools in urban areas, as was the
purpose of the whole issue of denominational education (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is making accusations that he
cannot back up because they cannot be backed up.
Mr. Speaker, here is the reality of the situation. I know it is Question
Period, but the reality of the situation is simply this: I have had meetings
with school board members over the number of years that I have been in this
House of Assembly to discuss the concerns in my district. There has been a major
busing issue in my district since last year. I met with the previous Chair, I
have met with the present Chair, to try to get that resolved, and that is what
the discussion was about, Mr. Speaker. Nothing more, nothing less.
He should apologize.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, some of the most vulnerable in our society are being negatively
impacted by the high price of heating their homes. When the government announced
their Home Heating Fuel Rebate, they left thousands of poor and middle-income
earners in this Province out in the cold.
I ask the minister: Will he listen to the public outcry and expand the rebate
program to include those using electricity and other sources of fuel to heat
their homes?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The rebate program we announced is the highest in the entire country in
rebating people - putting it in the hands and the pockets of people - on fuel,
number one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Secondly, in the last two years, electricity has risen by
$388 more to help people heat their home. That is the extra cost. It has risen
by $1,058, the increased amount of heating it by home heating fuel. It is three
times as much. We are going to compensate people under home heating fuel up to
$400 of net income. That could be $37,000 of gross income. It could be $35,000
of gross income. Net income is what counts. You could make more than thirty, get
a rebate.
We have done it to address people, particularly people who are hardest hit,
low-income people. Unlike the federal program that is tied to a guaranteed
income supplement, we raised it significantly high, way above that amount. It is
not close to what any other province in this country has put forth. It is the
most compassionate and most direct home heating program offered, to my
knowledge, in the history of this country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the minister, he should remember his own private member's motion
when he was in Opposition, about including electricity when the Home Heating
Fuel Rebate was issued before.
Mr. Speaker, the minister may be proud to balance the government's budget,
but he should not forget the thousands of poor people around this Province who
are finding it difficult to balance their budgets this year.
I ask the minister: Will he expand this program to include the working poor
and middle-income earners who are finding themselves in a financially difficult
position due to the high cost of heating fuels?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, when we dealt with a private member's
resolution in this House there was no difference in the increase and escalation
of home heating fuel costs and electricity costs. Since that time, home heating
costs have skyrocketed and electricity gone up close to the price of inflation -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if they do not want to hear the answer....
Over the last seven years, electricity has marginally exceeded, per year, the
amount of inflation on any goods or services. Food has gone up; other services
have gone up. It has gone up in a reasonable line. The reason why is because it
has skyrocketed, home heating fuel, creating a lot of hardships for people in
this Province.
What we have done is, we have taken an action to address that, Mr. Speaker,
and the program is far beyond what any other province in this country has done
in direct input back to people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, what a short distance walk across this House can
change when someone is fighting for something.
Yesterday, government unveiled an insufficient program that it claims will
help low-income earners with energy efficiency in their homes. Most of the
people he is targeting cannot afford to fed themselves, Mr. Speaker, and will
certainly not have the money available to take
part in this program. Government
is flushed with cash from high energy prices.
Will the minister come forward with a better plan for low-income individuals
and expand the program announced yesterday to assist the working poor and
middle-income earners dealing with high energy costs?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, our government is dealing with low-income
people across the whole spectrum. We introduced an income tax for people,
families below $19,000 income and $11,500 single, no income tax of a provincial
nature. We have increased supplements to low-income people. We have introduced,
under Income Support, an increase for single parents and single people living
with low incomes, an increase.
Mr. Speaker, we are developing now a poverty strategy to look at the whole
spectrum of low-income people, how we can address the needs of these people in a
very comprehensive manner across all aspects of health and education, across
income and other areas, and you will see some of these aspects rolled out in the
next budget, what this government is doing to combat poverty and deal with
people - when a government did nothing but freeze rates for a number of years,
and did absolutely nothing to address low-income people in this Province.
We are going to take action, Mr. Speaker. It will be comprehensive, it will
be detailed, and it will deal with the underlying cause of poverty in this
Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
We have time for one very quick supplementary.
The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will go directly to the question. I ask the minister: Will government
consider helping the many non-profit and volunteer groups around this Province
who are having to cut short the good work they do because of high fuel prices?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we deal with numerous groups, numerous
agencies out there. We provide funding in many of these instances. Funding
varies from year to year based on need. Every single individual group out there
deals with respect to departments. Are we going to carte blanche, blanket, throw
money at something without looking at individual causes? The answer is no, but
we are aware. We have advanced -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we have advanced funds and we are looking at
dealing with the increased cost of heating all over the Province, whether it is
in government buildings, whether it is in hospitals, whether it is people
driving vehicles across the Province. We have looked at a lot of things. We are
giving serious consideration to a whole variety of things, and the impact that
high fuel price are having on people in this Province and low-income people. We
have made tremendous progress on numerous issues that have not been touched for
years, and we are going to make more progress because we want to move this
Province from one that has the highest poverty rate that we inherited from that
government, in this country, and we want to move it to the lowest in this
country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allocated for Question Period has expired.
The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. It is unparliamentary in this
House of Assembly or any Legislature for one member to impugn the motives of
another member. During Question Period today, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi impugned motives on myself as the Member for Cape St. Francis.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi either to back up
what he said, produce the evidence of what he said, or stand up and withdraw
and/or apologize.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, speaking to
a point of privilege.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not know if I am entitled to speak to a point of privilege; it sounds
more like a point of order. What I will say is that the member should read
Hansard before he suggests that I am impugning his motives. I did not impugn
anybody's motives. I just ask questions, and the ministers choose to get up
and answer them in a certain way. I do not feel I have said anything that either
impugns his motives, accuses him of anything, or suggests that anything I had
said requires an apology.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, speaking to the point
of privilege.
MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.
The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi presented to this House today a fact
that he presented as a fact. The record will show he said to the Minister of
Municipal Affairs: You said at the meeting last night. Now, Mr. Speaker, the
question that begs to be answered, and I guess what the Minister of Municipal
Affairs has before you for consideration - the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi
knows this, that if you are going to stand in the House and present a question
which really amounts to, when did you stop beating your child last, because that
is the type of question he asked, imputing a motive on the Minister of Municipal
Affairs, and put forward a fact to this House as if he was there when he was
not, he has a responsibility to either back up his allegation and lay the
evidence right here so people can see it, or go out and say: Well, I just asked
a question and I don't mind putting innuendo on a person's integrity and
character in this House. It can only be one or the other, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly don't wish to intercede on behalf of the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the NDP. I am sure he needs no defense from
myself, he is quite capable of defending himself, but I think his suggestion is
immanently reasonable. Rather than get into a he said-she said thing here,
perhaps we might, I would suggest, wait for the printing of Hansard and then we
will all be in a position to see what was or was not said, and we will be in a
better position to deal with it, rather than dealing with it quickly, without
proper consideration and thought as to what was or was not said.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, speaking to
the point of privilege.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With all due respect to the Government House Leader, this is not a court of
law and you don't have to be an eye witness to something to bring it up in the
House. If that were the case, we wouldn't talk about very much in this House
of Assembly.
Whatever facts were contained in what I said were not denied by the minister.
We should all read Hansard and calm down and decide whether or not there is a
point of order or privilege of any kind.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair will review Hansard and if necessary the video tape, to find out
exactly what was said and will report back to the House hopefully by the session
on Monday afternoon of next week.
MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to
Section 26(5)(
a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am
tabling one Order-in-Council relating to a funding pre-commitment for the
2006-2007 fiscal year.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Tabling of Documents. Notices of Motion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is asking for Notices of Motion.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday in Questions Period, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair
asked the Minister of Health and Community Services a question about radiation
equipment at the Health Sciences Centre in St. John's. The minister indicated
to the member that he would report back to the House on this particular matter.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has been in touch with the Eastern Regional
Integrated Health Authority and has been informed that this was a planned
shutdown to install new pieces of radiation equipment which would increase
capacity for cancer patients. In order to install the necessary equipment to
provide this service, Eastern Health has had to renovate an existing treatment
area in the same room that houses equipment to treat skin cancer. Given that it
was a planned shutdown, Eastern Health was proactive in arranging either
alternate treatment or rescheduling some patients for a later date. Those
patients deemed by the treating physicians to require immediate treatment are
receiving it through the use of other radiation equipment. Those patients deemed
by the physician as medically able to wait for treatment are being rescheduled.
Mr. Speaker, the member asked about the number of people who are impacted by
this. Eastern Health advises that a total of eighteen people are impacted by
that room closure. Four patients are waiting for treatment. However, as
previously stated, if there is any concern expressed by the attending physician,
alternate treatment is available. Eight have preliminary markings done and will
be treated when the room reopens, and the remaining six are to be simulated
tomorrow and they will be scheduled for treatment after the simulation is
complete or are waiting for further assessment by their physician.
Mr. Speaker, these treatments are classified as superficial treatments and is
not considered to be a significant problem by the physician or the cancer
centre. The renovation is expected to be completed by a week from Monday coming.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further answers to questions for which notice has been
given?
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was engaged in a conversation with my colleagues across the floor when you
went to Notices of Motion. I did want to make two Notices of Motion, so I would
ask my colleagues in the House just for leave for a moment.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I want to give notice that I will on tomorrow
ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act Respecting Denturists. (Bill 60)
Also, I want to give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce
the following resolution:
WHEREAS subsection 4(1) of the Child and Youth Advocate Act provides
"The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate shall be filled by the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a resolution of the House of Assembly."
NOW THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that Ms Darlene Neville be appointed as the
Child and Youth Advocate.
I just want to give notice of that, so that at an appropriate time the
leaders of the three respective parties can pick a time, some time next week,
when we can make that official here in the House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some of the people of the
Terra Nova District. I will read the prayer of the petition first.
The petition of the undersigned residents of the provincial District of Terra
Nova and the federal District of Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor humbly
shewth:
WHEREAS the name of the District of Terra Nova offers a reminder of our
historic past and connection with Terra Nova National Park; and
WHEREAS the communities around the Terra Nova National Park share a common
economy based in forestry, agriculture and tourism; and
WHEREAS the tourism industry offers special opportunities associated with
Terra Nova National Park and other opportunities capitalizing on the Terra Nova
identify; and
WHEREAS the current boundaries of Terra Nova National Park greatly affect the
constituents of the Eastport Peninsula, Charlottetown and Glovertown; and
Not withstanding our recognition of the need for Terra Nova National Park to
retain its integrity we now feel the need for winter access through the Terra
Nova National Park from both the Eastport Peninsula and the Town of
Charlottetown; and
WHEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon you to
consider the proposal being put forth for consideration and action.
And as duty bound petitions will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of comments on this petition. There
are just about 600 names on this petition. Basically, what has happened here is
the residents of some communities, such as Charlottetown and the Eastport
Peninsula, are not able to access the provincial trail system that we have.
As you know, the area of Terra Nova is certainly an area where tourism has
certainly taken off and we certainly have, as a Province, really pushed and
tried to maintain a good trail system. It has created a lot of dollars, a lot of
economic growth for the area. But, the fact is, that these communities cannot
access the trails. They are calling upon the federal government, really. This is
a federal government matter and we realize that. These constituents have asked
me to come forward with this petition, Mr. Speaker, just for a matter, I guess,
to show our support in realizing that we really do need to have an access to the
Park. It is certainly not appropriate that other areas in this Province can
access these trails, and these other smaller communities cannot access it and
certainly all of the Eastport Peninsula.
Today, we certainly call upon the federal government to step up to the plate,
to give us the opportunity to be able to go out there and have a trail way
through the Terra Nova National Park and actually continue to move and make
tourism a great thing within the Terra Nova District and within these
communities and areas.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess, Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill. It would be Order 6, second
reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act. (Bill 42)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 42, Order 6,
An Act To
Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park
Commission Act." (Bill 42)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This particular bill here is to enable us to - a couple of particular things.
One, what it does - like, the Commission now has no authority to borrow. Under
this, what this will do, it will have the authority to borrow, given government
approval. For example, the trailer park in Pippy Park is a very heavily utilized
area. We want to expand the trailer park and do an expansion. By applying to
ACOA we could get up to 50 per cent funding, interest free, to do expansions.
That authority is not there now. If we want to enhance that park and utilize it
and make improvements to it, to allow more people to enjoy it, we are
handicapped now because of the current legislation. So, that is one thing that
it does.
A second thing in the bill, because it allows - and it is in the explanatory
notes there - us to appoint enforcement officers now. For instance, if somebody
was up cutting trees in the park, we would not have the authority, particularly
Park Commission, to do something about it. Or, if there was inappropriate
camping up there. We need authority to be able to do something about that, to
have a degree of enforcement over the park.
Overall, there are some efficiency changes just in the operational things in
particular, that this would allow the government to do. So, it is to allow the
park - Pippy Park, as you are aware, has been subsidized by government for many,
many years. We have moved to try to reduce that. We have reduced the grant to
Pippy Park in this year's budget. The intent is to eliminate the grant to
Pippy Park, to make it more efficient in its operation in Pippy Park.
That is why this bill, I will tell the Member for Port de Grave, will allow
an expansion of that area so we can - you can go out and borrow then, on
authority from Cabinet, and you can get 50 per cent interest free, for example,
from ACOA that we cannot do now. This allows to expand the camping area, to
enhance it, to get extra revenues that will pay for the overall costs. That is
one of the benefits in this particular bill. These are the generalities of it.
Either at second reading or in Committee stage, I am certainly open to answer
any particular questions.
With that, I will close my comments on second reading.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you for the opportunity to response to Bill 42. Pippy Park, as we all
know it, has been one of our provincial treasures. Although there are two great
facilities in Pippy Park, it has been operating for about fifteen years in a
deficit and it has always relied on government support. By enacting this new
piece of legislation today, the Commission now will be in a position where it
can borrow on its own and, as the minister said, it can probably attract federal
funding from ACOA, which would be a big plus in expanding the current
facilities.
Of course, the object of this legislation is to reduce the reliance on
government funding and grants. Of course, the Commission has always operated
under the purview of government and they had a guaranteed funding of about
$400,000 a year. Now, over the past year or so that has been reduced to
$350,000. It is constantly under review, this particular park, but the idea of
this piece of legislation, this bill will allow the golf course to operate for
profit. So, in other words, they will have to show a profit and break even at
the end of the year. Of course, by doing this, the current group that operates
the golf course portion, which is named as the Thomas Group, they currently have
a line of credit. I think it is somewhere in the area of about $150,000, the
last time I looked at the Budget particulars last spring. If this piece of
legislation gets passed, it will be necessary, of course, for government to
absorb that line of credit in order for this transition to take place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There are a number of conversations occurring which is preventing the Speaker
from hearing the presentation put forward by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.
I ask members for their co-operation.
The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans continuing to debate this bill at
second reading.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying before the interruption, this new group that will actually be
formed to run the entire golf course will be taking over from the Thomas Group
and will be under an obligation to balance their books at the end of the year.
There is a detail of course that has not been worked out entirely that is a
bit of a concern. One part of the legislation makes an indication that
government will appoint a new board of directors to manage the golf course, but
details are scanty at this point. I know that will occur after the act is
passed. We have not been given any side details as to the group, the numbers,
and: Where will that group come from? Will it be a political patronage group, or
will it be people who are skilled in the industry and who have knowledge of
running a golf course?
When it comes to enforcement of regulations within the park: What kind of
people are going to be hired to enforce those regulations? Will that be another
avenue where this present government will show that they are going to use this
to load it up with political patronage jobs? So, these are the kind of details
that are not included in this legislation that is before us today, but the
backbone of the legislation I do support.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers to second reading?
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. If he
speaks now he will close the debate at second reading.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will just move second reading of Bill 42.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 42,
An Act To
Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act, be now read a second time?
All those in favour, aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act. (Bill 42)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall this
bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow? Presently?
MR. E. BYRNE: Later today.
MR. SPEAKER: Later today.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act,"
read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House
presently, by leave. (Bill 42)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 9, second reading of a bill,
An Act Respecting Protection Against
Family Violence. (Bill 50)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 50,
An Act Respecting
Protection Against Family Violence, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Protection Against
Family Violence." (Bill 50)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise today to address an issue that has been the source of
growing community and government interest and concern. I am speaking of family
violence.
The past two decades have seen legislative program and policy developments
primarily in the area of criminal justice. Recently, we have seen a significant
development in this Province with the expansion of Victim Services and the
establishment of a child victim witness program.
Today, I wish to introduce the Family Violence Protection Act. This
legislation is civil as opposed to criminal legislation, that will offer an
immediate response for victims of family violence in emergency situations. This
legislation will complement but not replace criminal justice interventions or
decriminalize family violence. Civil family violence legislation fills a gap in
the justice process for victims by providing a broader range of more immediate
remedies than those that are currently available through the Criminal Code.
Currently, when the police respond to a family violence call, their ability
and the grounds to remove the accused is limited. Often, it is the victim and
the children who must leave the home in a police car to be transported to a safe
shelter. Through emergency protection orders, that is set out in the
legislation, the legislation would provide, amongst other things, for the victim
- and the majority of victims in these situations are women - and their children
to be able to remain in the family home where they can have uninterrupted access
to school, to family, to employment and to community support.
Mr. Speaker, applications for emergency protection orders will be made on a ex
parte basis twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Therefore, this
legislation will go a long way to expanding access to justice for people who
reside in areas where there is no court. A lawyer will not be required in order
to make the application. The application would be made by a phone to a judge,
and the judges will be available on call seven days a week, twenty-four hours a
day.
I am extremely pleased to be able to tell you that this legislation has been
the result of a very active community and government collaborative process. Last
February, government established the Justice Minister's Committee on Violence
Against Women. In addition to senior officials of the Department of Justice and
the Women's Policy Office, we have strong community membership through
representation from the provincial Transition House Association, the Provincial
Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the John Howard Society, and the
Violence Prevention Initiatives Regional Committees in Eastern, Central and
Western Newfoundland and Labrador.
At that time, government identified this legislation as a key priority. We
asked the Committee to do the research, to explore best practices elsewhere in
the country and in the world, and to conduct some consultations on the Island
and in Labrador with key stakeholders and then come back to me, come back to the
department, with a proposal for a model for this Province. We are very pleased
with the results. The committee's work has been extremely valuable, and I
would particularly like to thank Ms Kim Dreaddy of the Provincial Transition
House Association for her hands-on dedication and commitment on this initiative.
I want to thank all of the other members of both the sub-committee and the
minister's committee for helping us bring this legislation forward.
The success of the legislation, Mr. Speaker, will rely heavily on thorough
training, education and development of the appropriate policies and protocols
within the Department of Justice and with other government departments and, as
well, with relevant community partners. We are prepared to begin this work
immediately upon the passage of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the government realizes that this legislation makes a strong
statement about how seriously it takes the issue of family violence, and the
devastation that family violence creates in the lives of adults and children
alike. While this legislation will not ultimately solve all problems of family
violence in our society, it is another measure, it is another tool, that we can
offer victims to provide them with more options and more choice in the justice
system, and easier access to the justice system.
Our efforts in this area, along with those of other departments in the
Violence Prevention Initiative, under the leadership of the Minister Responsible
for the Status of Women, the Minister of Education and our community partners
combined, will create substantial social change for a safer Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words in response to this new act,
the Family Violence Protection Act. I would like to commend government, in fact,
for bringing forth this piece of legislation. The issues involving family
violence - which quite often are the same; we have a lot of violence against
women and against children - certainly need to be addressed. We were
handicapped, and the system was handicapped in many cases, when it came to
protecting people who needed this type of protection. The Criminal Code did not,
does not, adequately deal with these situations and respond quickly enough, so
it is good to see that we now will have another tool in the arsenal against
violence that takes place in the family settings.
I am very pleased to see, as well, it is quite obvious that our Provincial
Court Judges will have to buy into this new law, because someone has to be
available on a twenty-four seven basis in order to address these concerns. It is
one thing to pass the law, but it is going to take the co-operation of everyone
in the system, particularly the judges as well, to make sure that this works,
and it is only, I would think, over a period of time that we are going to work
out some of the kinks. I do not think anyone should expect, simply because we
passed the law, that we are going to have everything hunky-dory in terms of
immediacy, proper training and so on. I think there has to be common sense
applied to this, and it is going to take some time for everybody in the system
to get involved, get training, so that we can make this piece of legislation
work for what it is intended to do.
I am also aware there was no doubt a concern from a lot of the civil rights
activists. For example, when you do things of this immediate emergency type
nature, you quite often have concerns raised by people that you may infringe
upon someone's civil rights. Someone makes an emergency application, a judge
deals with it at 4:00 o'clock in the morning, and someone ends up being out of
their home, someone ends up without being able to see their children, because an
order was made. So, the question and concern often raised: Did that infringe
upon somebody's rights.
Again, you have to look at the balance here, and I think it is very proper
and we have made a good balance here because we have not gotten away from the
procedural fairness piece. The respondents in those cases will still have an
opportunity within this process to get due process, and if something has been
done, they feel, improperly, they have lost their rights. We have done two
things. We have preserved their rights for procedure fairness. They have a right
to question again the authority upon which the judge made his decision at a
later time; but, in the meantime, I believe the immediate and necessary problem
has been dealt with, and that is, we have protected someone from violence, and I
think that is a fair trade-off.
I am all in favour of civil rights, and I am certainly in favour of, you
should never encroach upon anyone's civil rights, but I believe there has to
be reasonable limitations from time to time, and in any circumstance where we
deal with family violation, I believe it is always a reasonable limitation to
act prudently in the first instance - for example, such as these emergency
orders being made - and, if there were any violence happening, protect
individuals from having to incur that type of activity.
Again, at this point, I think it is a great policy and it will fill a
loophole. I commend the minister and the government for bringing forward this
piece of legislation and I think it will go a long way to helping a very serious
problem that we are facing today.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to speak on Bill 50,
An Act Respecting Protection Against Family
Violence, here at second reading in the House which is approval in principle. I
am not going to comment on all the details of the legislation, because that is
for Committee stage of the debate, but I do want to talk about the importance of
this legislation and to say that we do support it.
We have seen, in our Province, far too often instances of family violence
that cause women and children to fear for their safety. Women in particular who
are victims of family violence often have no recourse but to leave the family
home, and in many parts of this Province shelter is not available.
We have also seen - and this is the part that, I think, requires more than
just legislation - instances where individuals have been subject to court
processes, whether they be restraining orders, whether they be probation orders,
whether they be conditions of release that have been granted by the courts when
someone has been charged with an offense or taken up on what is commonly known
as a peace bond and have been subject to more stringent rules in the courts.
That itself has not served as sufficient to protect an individual - and here we
are talking almost exclusively about women - from further actions of violence
directed towards them. It is not enough to have a law, not enough to have a
rule, not enough to have an order. There have to be resources available in the
communities where people live to ensure that they are protected.
I suggest, as well, Mr. Speaker, to government officials, to the Department
of Justice, to the police forces, to the judges of the courts who will be
enforcing this order, that there be very careful consideration given in granting
these orders. If orders are granted very easily or too easily, then the respect
for the law, the deserved respect for the law on the orders and the rules, might
not be as strong as it should be. If, when these orders are granted, they are
not enforced because there is insufficient police protection available, then
this law will be considered as ineffective as in some cases peace bonds have
been.
I support the legislation. I support the approach. It is a novel approach. I
do not know what other provinces have this. Maybe the Minister of Justice can
tell us that when he closes debate. It is outside of the criminal law and
provides additional strength to the kind of orders that could be made under the
Family Law Act for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and provides an
emergency procedure, but it is something that I think, from a civil liberties
perspective, as the Opposition House Leader has said, ought to be used very
carefully because just as we want to ensure that the victims of family violence
are protected, we do not want this provision to be used somehow as a part of the
arsenal of one party to a matrimonial dispute having to do with possession of
matrimonial property. It is extremely important that women be protected, and
women should not have to be the ones who leave because a violent situation
exists.
The question does need to be asked, that after this has passed, will a woman
in a remote community, who is a victim of family violence, be more secure
because this legislation is passed or will she not? Because if the policing
resources are not available, if the respect for the law in these communities
which we are talking about is not strong, then we will have a situation where
these kinds of orders will not be effective in providing safety and security for
individuals.
I will refer to one
section of the act, clause 5, which talks about the times
during which a judge has the power to make such an emergency order - and this is
being made without notice to the other person. So, I think you have to
understand this is a significant intrusion, far above the normal powers that are
given to provincial court judges or other judges. They are giving an order
without notice, which has the effect of excluding an individual from his or her
- because it could be an order against a woman - property. The judge has to
determine, on the balance of probabilities first of all, that family violence
has occurred. And, secondly, that by reason of seriousness or urgency the
emergency protection order should be made without delay to ensure the immediate
protection of the applicant who is at risk of harm or the property that is at
risk of damage.
So, if somebody goes on a rampage on the family home, starting to destroy the
home or threatening to destroy the home, or torch the home, or those kinds of
things as part of a series of threats or actions, then these matters can be
taken into consideration. The judge shall consider - and this is where part two
of that clause says - the nature of the family violence. Obviously, the
seriousness of it, the seriousness of a threat. Secondly, the history of family
violence by the respondent toward the applicant and whether it is more likely
than not that the respondent will continue the family violence. That is a
judgement that the judge will be called upon to make, based on the history and
based on threats and based on what has happened in the past. Thirdly, the
existence of immediate danger to persons or property. Fourthly, the best
interests of the applicant and an affected child.
In considering whether an order of this nature should be made, presumably
also the availability of space in a shelter or availability of a shelter might
be considered as a part of the considerations that a judge would have, whether
or not the circumstances in the community where the individuals are residing,
the availability of police protection - because, again, an order by itself is
not going to be of much help if the RCMP only visit the community once a week or
are stationed some many miles away. So, we have to put a lot of faith in the
judges making proper decisions here, but from the point of view of the personal
safety of women with families who are affected by these orders, we have to know
that the police are available, that they have been trained to deal with these
situations, that they know what to do, that the judges are sufficiently briefed
on the resources that are available, because it is no good to give a judge a
piece of legislation and ask them to make wise decisions based on the
legislation that we have, this brand new legislation, without knowing what
resources are available in a particular community or in the area in which they
are being asked to make an order, whether or not those resources will be
available to ensure that the emergency order provides the kind of protection
that is intended here.
I am very supportive of taking strong measures to protect women from family
violence of this nature, and, because of the history of family violence in this
Province - and not just exclusive to this Province, obviously, all across this
country - we have to know that people are being protected. We have had quite
well-publicized circumstances of people, women, who were subject to or had the
benefit of a peace bond being, in fact, murdered by their spouses, or attempted
to go after them on other occasions, and this is not, obviously, something that
we should spare legislative effort to try to stop and resolve; but, it is not
merely going to be resolved by legislation but must also have the resources to
go with it.
I want to say, in closing, that I support this legislation, that I hope that
proper education and briefing is done to ensure that all those involved in
implementing this legislation are fully aware of the implications and the
provisions that are here, and that the resources will be made available on a
specific basis to ensure that people who are beneficiaries of an order of this
nature, an emergency order, do receive special notice and protection.
Peace bonds are a good example. This is similar to a peace bond in the sense
that - although peace bonds under the Criminal Code can create specific criminal
offences for doing things contrary to what is spelled out in the peace bond
order; but, they haven't always proven effective in family violence
situations. We need to be convinced, to some extent, that this will work better,
and one of the ways that it will work better is if the police force in a
particular area are certain to have notice of these emergency orders when they
are made.
I have not seen all of the detail of this legislation, whether this is a
legislated requirement that the local police force in the area in which an
emergency protection order has been made shall be notified of the existence of
this peace order. Because one of things that happens, of course, if there is a
violation or attempted violation or a possible violation, of one of these
emergency orders, is that the police have to know that the order is in place.
That has been an issue with respect to peace bonds in the past, that if the
police are not in possession of a peace bond it is very difficult for them to
act on a peace bond in terms of following up and enforcing the peace bond.
Perhaps the minister has a special plan to ensure that the police force are
notified in the case of every emergency protection order that is made under this
act, that this takes place.
The order is a direction to a police officer under
section 15. It is a
directive, and this is what it says here, "An emergency protection order
made under this Act is a direction binding on a police officer to (
a) give
notice of the order to the respondent in accordance with this Act and the rules
of court; and (
b) take necessary steps, which may include the arrest of the
respondent and the seizure of property, to enforce compliance with the emergency
protection order."
Perhaps this is the notice that I was talking about. It goes further than
filing a copy with the police officer, but it says it is binding on a police
officer, so I guess it has to be provided to a police officer so that they would
be involved from the very beginning. I suppose ipso facto, to use a phrase, by
virtue of that, the local police authority would certainly have notice of that
order, and they are also required to take necessary steps to enforce compliance.
I think that does go further than a peace bond, and provides the kind of
direction to peace officers that may be necessary; but, as I indicated earlier,
there is going to be a requirement of a fair degree of briefing and education on
the part of all peace officers, that they are aware of what their obligations
are with respect to this legislation, how they can function to carry it out, and
how they can act on a timely basis to ensure that compliance with these
emergency protection orders are, in fact, taking place.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I welcome other speakers on this issue. I
understand the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women will speak on this
as well, and I am interested in hearing other views on this legislation which I
think is a very important step in making more secure the victims of family
violence in our Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers at second reading.
If the hon. the ministers speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to say I appreciate the comments of the hon. Government House
Leader and also the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I can appreciate some of
the concerns they have raised, and I can assure you that the committee of
experts, the Minister's advisory Committee on Violence Against Women,
certainly have spent a lot of time analyzing some of the concerns that the hon.
members have raised, and have certainly looked at the best practice models that
have existed in other parts of the country.
I was in the Yukon recently for the federal, provincial and territorial
meeting of Justice Ministers, and there I spoke to the Justice Minister from the
Northwest Territories who is very pleased with the legislation. They had
recently implemented similar legislation in that territory and he spoke very
highly of it.
The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi spoke and raised concerns to make sure
that resources were placed into this initiative. Of course, they do have to be,
and I am pleased to tell the hon. member that the legislation will be
incorporated within the existing system and structure, but there will be a
dedicated co-ordinator in the department who will be developing training and
education programs and will work with the Department of Justice and other
departments and with appropriate community agencies on policy and protocol
developments.
In terms of overall resources in the Justice system, this government has
already begun implementing strategies to enhance police resources throughout the
Province.
Hon. members also raised concerns with respect to the judge giving careful
consideration in granting this emergency order. The application is ex parte
which means that the applicant alone will be talking to the judge and when the
order is granted it will have the respondent removed from the home by the
police, as opposed to the current situation where the person who it a victim of
domestic violence is required to leave the home and go to a shelter.
It is important to point out that if the order is granted by the judge, the
order will last a maximum of ninety days, the order cannot be renewed, and the
respondent, within ten days, can apply to a judge to have the order set aside or
to have the order varied or terminated. So there is due process. The applicant
will have a chance. When that happens, it is a new hearing and the evidence that
was brought up, was brought before the judge at the time of the original
application, and any new evidence will be heard.
The last thing I just want to say, is that in terms of communities where
there are no police officers, there is provision in the legislation where the
application can be brought by, of course, the victim. It can also be brought by
someone who lives with the victim, or a parent of the victim. A police officer
can bring the application. I would imagine in most cases it will be a police
officer that would initiate the application or the phone call to the judge, but
also the Minister of Justice in the act, is allowed to delegate, pursuant to the
regulations, people in the community who could be of assistance to victims. This
could be very helpful, especially in those communities where there is not a
police officer or there may be some time before a police officer can respond to
the call.
I want to thank the hon. members for their support. This is a very important
piece of legislation. It is progressive legislation. It will not solve all of
the problems but it will give those who suffer from domestic violence, another
tool, another step, another initiative, in helping to try to prevent family
violence in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 50,
An Act
Respecting Protection Against Family Violence, be now read a second time?
All those in favour, Aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act Respecting Protection Against Family Violence.
(Bill 50)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 50,
An Act Respecting Protection Against Family
Violence has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a
Committee of the Whole House?
MR. E. BYRNE: Later today.
MR. SPEAKER: Later in the day.
On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Protection Against Family
Violence," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole
House presently, by leave. (Bill 50)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 10, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act,
1991. (Bill 44)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 44,
An Act To Amend The
Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a second time.
On motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial
Court Act, 1991." (Bill 44)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise again to speak on another important topic in this
Province and to speak to Bill 44,
An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act.
This act, Mr. Speaker, requires the appointment of a standing three-member
tribunal to make recommendations to the Minister of Justice on the salaries and
benefits of provincial court judges every four years. The process is designed to
ensure the independence of judges and the judicial system.
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, anyone
charged with a crime is entitled to a hearing before an impartial and an
independent tribunal. So we have to make sure that our judges who hear these
cases are truly independent, and we do this in a number of ways. We give judges
security of tenure, that they cannot be fired without the influence of either
the House of Assembly or other provincial judicial council. They cannot be
transferred without their consent. We also have to ensure that they have some
financial security, because obviously, we cannot have a situation where a judge
is deciding cases where the provincial government itself is a litigant in many
of these cases. We cannot have a situation where if the provincial government
does not like the decision that the provincial court judge has made, that it
would somehow take away certain benefits or reduce the judges salary.
The Supreme Court of Canada has ordered that the process of determining
judges' salaries and judges' benefits be de-politicalized. Basically, that
means that there has to be a buffer. There has to be some buffer between the
government and the judges to determine their salary and their benefits. What we
have done in this Province in the past, is set up what is known as a salary and
benefits tribunal.
The last tribunal reported to the former Minister of Justice in September,
2001. Its report was considered by this House and was implemented as directed by
the House on April 1, 2002. The new tribunal was appointed last month on October
17, 2005. The Chair of the tribunal is retired Supreme Court Judge Geoffrey
Steele. The judges' representative on the tribunal is Mr. David Day, Q.C., and
the government's representative on the tribunal is Mr. David Norris, MBA, the
former Deputy Minister of Finance in the Newfoundland and Labrador Government. I
have asked this tribunal to report to me by April 1, 2006. The report period to
be addressed is four years from 2004-2005 to 2007-2008
This amendment is of a housekeeping nature only.
Section 28.2 of the act
requires the tribunal to report to the Minister of Justice within four years
from the date of the last report. The purpose of this amendment is to defer the
statutory report to April 1, 2004 from September 14, 2005; to confirm the
process now underway, with the co-operation and participation of the judges. The
new date of April 1, 2006 will provide sufficient time for the tribunal to
consider all issues before it and also permits tabling of the report in
consideration by this House during the spring session of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. colleagues to support this amendment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We certainly will be supportive of this amendment. It is more of a
housecleaning thing. I guess they need more time to get it done and get it done
right, and anything that permits of doing it proper and with proper
consideration, we certainly would not be having any objection to.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers at second reading?
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly have no difficulties with the legislation here. This committee
has important work to do and it is necessary to have the reports before the
House of Assembly in a timely fashion. The minister's explanation makes sense
to me, so we support this legislation.
MR. SPEAKER: Any further speakers at second reading?
If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate at second reading.
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues for the swift
passage of this legislation, which will allow this very important tribunal to
carry on its work.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 44,
An Act To
Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a second time?
All those in favour, aye.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 44)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 44,
An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, has
been now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a
Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow? Presently?
MR. E. BYRNE: Later today, Mr. Speaker.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act,
1991," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole
House presently, by leave. (Bill 44)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 4, second reading of a bill,
An Act To Amend The Forestry Act. (Bill
32)
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 32,
An Act To Amend The
Forestry Act, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Forestry
Act." (Bill 32)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 32,
An Act to Amend The Forestry Act, has been in the
works, I suppose, for about two-and-a-half to three years; maybe a little
longer, but not much. It is a result really that emanates from an outstanding
court decision, or came about as a decision of a court, and a court action that
was taken against the Crown sometime ago. I say that just by way of background,
so we understand the impetus for what we are about to discuss from debate. But,
out of that process has come, I believe, I can say to my colleague, the Minister
of Conservation and Environment, what we believe to be a pretty progressive and
forward looking piece of legislation. I do want to acknowledge upfront as well,
that much of the work, or at least half of the work associated with this piece
of legislation, was conducted by the previous Administration as well, who are
more than well aware of the impacts and the positive outcomes associated with
this act.
Essentially, what this act will do, and ultimately provide for, is - I do not
know if the word streamlining would be the most appropriate word but I will use
it in any event - streamlining the environmental assessment process and the
forestry planning process within each district to allow for a shorter time frame
and allow for the ability for the management of the forest system to be
conducted in a different and, in my view, more accountable up-front way.
Some features of the act, for example, provide for the concurrence of, I just
said, the forestry planning environmental assessment process to go forward, the
duty to consult, the ability to modify but not change the five-year forestry
plans within available districts, but the ability to modify and adapt to changes
within that period of time without adding to the Annual Allowable Cut that has
been established. A very important feature, as we have come to see through the
experiences that we have had.
Mr. Speaker, I offered a briefing to any and all members, certainly, related
to any piece of legislation. I mean, that is a standing offer that any member of
this House or any caucus who wish to have, what we refer to as a technical
briefing with respect to any piece of legislation. We would endeavour and do our
best to ensure that whatever information that we have within my own department,
or any other department, certainly is made available to the extent that we can,
which explains legislation and trying to provide members with as much
information as possible with respect to any piece of legislation.
To that end, I know that the Official Opposition had a briefing on this
yesterday. The Chief Executive Officer of the Newfoundland and Labrador Forestry
Service was in with another member of my staff, the Director of Communications
for Natural Resources, and presented a briefing to the Opposition. I think, at
the time, answered any questions to the best of their ability, any queries to
the best of their ability.
Second reading, Mr. Speaker, is about outlining, obviously, the general
thrusts and throes of what the piece of legislation is about and why we are
doing it and why we are moving forward. So, with that opening commentary, I will
take my seat and look forward to any other commentary or discussion that members
may have. In particular, if we want to get into a detailed discussion on a
clause-by-clause basis, I am certainly prepared, obviously, to do that at the
Committee stage.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words on the amendments to the
Forestry Act. People sometimes wonder, I guess, what we do spending a lot of
time here talking about some things that sometimes many of us know very little
about; for example, forestry. Coming from a place like Port aux Basques, of
course, we do not have to deal too much with forests in my neck of the woods
where the woodpecker brings a lunch. In any case, it is great that we review
here, as an institution, the laws that we are all governed by. Sometimes we do
not pick it up ourselves, that we did something wrong or we did not do it right
in the first place. Sometimes we are smart enough, through experience, to note
that we did not get it right and therefore we have to come back to the House.
That is why what we consider to be the laws of the land, from time to time, need
to be overhauled, like anything else, updated and made to fit the current day
circumstances.
That is what we had here, basically. We had a court decision, commonly
referred to as the Barry decision, back in 2001, when they said there are some
things amiss here. For example, you have two departments of government who are
involved in the administration of our forestry in a lot of respects - for
example, you had the Department of Natural Resources and you had the Department
of Environment, and sometimes we want to make sure that one hand knows what the
other hand is doing. That, of course, was not the case pre-Barry decision. What
the government of the day, in trying to follow through on what the judge
recommended, was to say: Let's get it right this time.
So they went back, there was an extensive overhaul, and what we see here
today is the culmination of that process to hopefully give that flexibility that
we need in government in managing the resources, but at the same time making
sure now that the one hand - for example, the Department of Environment and
Conservation - knows what is going on vis- B -vis
the Department of Natural Resources. That is what a lot of these amendments here
are geared to, so it is nice to see that.
We had cases, for example, where companies were submitting their operational
plans. The Department of Natural Resources might be making decisions about those
operational plans without necessarily the Department of Environment having any
oversight and to see if things were being done right from an environmental
review, or vice versa. You could have had the Department of Environment making
decisions that could impact upon the companies and no feedback between them. So,
that is a matter - it goes beyond housecleaning. This is a matter of proper
protocol, proper communication now being directed between the two departments to
make sure that this type of unnecessary, shall we say, miscommunication does not
happen in the future.
I do appreciate the minister - he offered a briefing here, a technical
briefing, which we took advantage of yesterday with his staff. I find that very
helpful. We all do not know everything about everything, and it is very helpful,
rather than come here into the House and try to decide on your feet, or just
before you get on your feet, what a piece of legislation does or does not say.
It is very helpful to members of this House when you take advantage of these
briefings, because quite often - and, no offence to the ministers, I am sure
most of them are well briefed - quite often there are technical details within
the legislation that even the minister does not have a good understanding of, or
background about, giving you the background as to why we are now here dealing
with that. When you get talking to the people who have lived this for years, and
the experts and the professionals and the bureaucrats in the field, they give
you a much more field-life situation as to why we are here. So, instead of just
dealing with paper and words, and wondering what it is all about, you get a good
background appreciation of what this is all about, and put some real-life
emphasis to what we are here trying to do.
I say to the minister, I thank you very much for the briefing that we had,
and I will certainly take advantage of every opportunity that I can get, any
time a piece of legislation concerns my area of criticism and critique, to make
sure that I am informed so any questions I do have will be of a constructive
nature.
In
summary, I will simply say that I agree with what I have read here. I
think it is a good process to move it forward. Don't mistake it; we will be
back here again. I am sure everything is still not right, and I am sure, with
the turn of time and experience again, that in the future some judge is going to
tell us that you still haven't got it right and we have to come back again.
That does not mean anybody failed. That does not mean anybody did anything
improper. That just means that you did not think about every particular
circumstance at the time, and that is what life is all about.
There is a difference between doing something deliberately or even mistakenly
wrong or without having given proper thought to it. It is something else that
you just could not have reasonably been expected to think of every single
circumstance. That is why everybody working together, the judiciary and the
Legislature and the people in the field, through experience, coming back and
saying: Let's make the changes when and if they are required.
Nobody, I believe, would be objecting to anything that makes common sense and
is going to make our world work better.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers at second reading?
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to speak briefly on the issue of Bill 32,
An Act To Amend The
Forestry Act.
I have to say that the forestry legislation in this Province, and the
operations of forestry in the Province, is probably one of the most complex
regimes that is managed by the government. Many times, Mr. Speaker, most people
in the Province have no idea what the management principles are, in effect, and
how decisions are made, why they are made, and how the use of our forests is
shared within the Province, and the various uses that are undertaken by both the
paper companies, who have specific rights over certain parcels of land that they
have in fee simple grants going back as early as 1905 and 1898, and some timber
leases going back before that. We have licences being granted by the Crown. We
have certain rights being sold and bought several times over the last hundred
years that give, without government's authority, certain rights over parcels
of land, and the management of the forestry is an extremely complex matter.
One example, I guess, of how these matters become issues is only in a time of
crisis. When a paper mill is threatening to change its regime, or close down, or
making demands upon government, we hear all about the regimes, how they work,
and what rights companies have over certain parcels of land. We have crises when
it comes to questions of environmental protection, use of the forest. Cutting,
for example, up in the area of the main river was a major point of controversy
several years ago, and whether or not environmental protections had been
undertaken. There have been matters subject to court cases in the federal court
and in our provincial courts in terms of the access roads. There is an enormous
amount of legislative consequence to forest activities. I do not know if any one
person has a handle on them all. I certainly do not claim to, Mr. Speaker.
We had a situation a couple of years ago - Bill 27 has been talked about an
awful lot in the last number of days. Bill 27, effectively, has the effect of
changing timber leases to Abitibi Consolidated, some of which were ninety-nine
year leases that expired, or would have already expired, some of which are
expiring, or were due to expire, over the next number of years. Bill 27 puts
them all together and says they will all expire on the same date in 2010, I
believe it is.
One other interesting aspect of Bill 27 is that there is a requirement that
there be a public consultation process to take place prior to, in the twelve
months prior to any renewal of these leases, to consider, by communities and
stakeholders -
MR. E. BYRNE: This is Bill 32.
MR. HARRIS: This is Bill 32; the hon. member has it right. The Government
House Leader says, yes, this is Bill 32.
He is the one who has been on the radio and on TV almost every day talking
about Bill 27. If he can talk about it on the radio and on TV all the time, I am
certainly going to talk about it in the House of Assembly, because it is an
important matter, at second reading on this bill, that we have some general
understanding of how our forestry system works in this Province, because we have
a whole series of particular changes here, bits and pieces, changes, nineteen
separate changes to the Forestry Act that affect the environment, that affect
the usage of our timber, that affect whether clear-cutting will or will not take
place in certain areas, it has affects on the minister's power to approve
exchange of timber rights, and all sorts of things that are spelled out here. I
didn't have this technical briefing, Mr. Speaker, wasn't even aware of it,
so I don't know the detail that was made available to the previous speaker as
to what each and every
section of this bill means. So, I want to talk about it
in a general way, and I am talking about it at second reading, which is whether
or not this House should approve, in principle, these amendments to the Forestry
Act.
As I say, the public is hardly ever involved in issues related to this,
except in a time of crisis, if someone is complaining about a particular
environmental consequence of forestry activity, if a community is complaining
that they don't have access to timber for firewood, if a sawmill operator is
complaining that they don't have access to saw logs, if a sawmill is
complaining about the price that they are getting for pulp logs under contracts
with the big paper companies. These are the times when the public hears about
the rules and regulations and how they affect the forestry. The minister is
charged with a big responsibility in getting it right in terms of the Forestry
Act and the legislation that allows -
MR. E. BYRNE: He has no idea (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: While I am trying to speak here, Mr. Speaker, I understand
the Government House Leader is suggesting to members opposite that I have no
idea of the forest management process in the Province, that I don't know
anything about what I am talking about, and that I have no knowledge whatsoever
about the forestry in the Province. Well, I will tell the minister, Mr. Speaker,
I have a very deep knowledge - I don't have the extensive knowledge of the act
that this minister is supposed to have, and I didn't attend the technical
briefing that my friends on this side were offered yesterday. I will say that I
do know we have significant problems in our forestry and it has to do with the
way the forests have been managed by - and I am not putting the blame on this
minister - but by governments of this Province over the years. We have a crisis
in the amount of fiber, the paper companies call it, available to carry out the
paper industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have had significant issues related to environmental issues in terms of
clear-cutting and the consequences for our rivers. We had a situation, Mr.
Speaker, where forestry management plans were not even subject to the
Environment Protection Act up until recently. So, we do have significant public
policy issues that the public are entitled to have a say in, and if the only
people who are allowed to talk about it are the people who have the intimate and
intricate knowledge about it, well, there will not be very many people talking
about forestry in this Province because, as I said in the beginning, it is an
extremely complicated area; complicated enough that, as the minister himself
said, and the previous speaker, the courts have told the government that the
legislation they have does not allow them to do the things they are purporting
to do.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this act and the amendments that are being brought
forward do bring about the changes that are necessary to allow the flexibility
to manage the forest properly, that the government feels it needs. I hope that
they are here.
We do have a significant problem across this country, Mr. Speaker, in terms
of ensuring that we do have maximum value from our forests, that in this
Province, in particular, communities can have access to sawlogs, for example,
access to firewood, access to Crown land where necessary, to ensure that their
community's needs are met, and this is a very significant piece of work.
Mr. Speaker, we do need to have a stable and sustainable forestry policy. We
have seen in the past, through the five-year management plans that have been
published by this government, that the prospects for the future mean that there
are going to have to be considerable changes made if we are going to have the
amount of fiber that we need, the amount of forest regeneration that we need, in
order to maintain a viable forestry industry in the Province.
I hope the minister has gotten it right. I do know that significant problems
exist in our industry today, as has been evidenced by decisions made by Abitibi
Consolidated, and ones that they want to make; but I, too, want to say that we,
in this party, strongly supported Bill 27 when it came before the House. We
believe the forestry companies have a strong obligation to the people of this
Province, having been here, in one case - Abitibi Consolidated and its
predecessors - for 100 years, and made very substantial profits for its
shareholders, and continue to do so into the future from the concessions that
were granted to them by governments of the past, and current governments, to
ensure that we have viable industry.
I hope that these changes give the minister the flexibility that is needed to
ensure that - we do not want to put extra burdens on forestry operators, that
are unnecessary. We do want to see some flexibility, but we also have to ensure
that the rights of people who have access to the forest are recognized and
supported, and not taken away by arbitrary acts of government that can happen
from time to time.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, at second reading, in principle, I support
changes to the Forestry Act that will give increased flexibility to the minister
in ensuring, first of all, that forest management plans are prepared that are
appropriate to the timber-cutting regimes that are available, and that you can
combine areas from one forest management plant before another to establish
Annual Allowable Cuts, and not have the kind of rigidity that we have had in the
past.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to speak to Bill 32,
An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, when we are developing any type of
resources in this Province, that we do so, so that it is streamlined through
government departments. I think this bill today is certainly going to enable