November 25, 2014
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 45
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Before we start proceedings, I would like to welcome to the public gallery
today Councillor Vince Burton from the Town of Paradise.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we have members'
statements from the Member for the District of Baie Verte – Springdale; the
Member for the District of St. George's – Stephenville East; the Member for
the District of St. John's Centre; the Member for the District of Mount
Pearl South; the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the Member for
the District of Virginia Waters; and, if the House approves with leave, the
Member for the District of St. John's South.
The
hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte – Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
rise in this hon. House today to congratulate an outstanding teacher-coach.
School Sports Newfoundland and Labrador recognizes outstanding
contributions to the development and delivery of athletics with the Honour
Award.
The
recipient of this annual award has a long and distinguished involvement with
school sports. From Indian River
High, Springdale Roger Jacobs has captured this title for 2013-2014.
For the past twenty-eight years Roger has been a physical education
teacher and has coached numerous sports such as volleyball, basketball,
soccer, badminton, table tennis, ball hockey, ice hockey, and slo pitch.
He
has taught in Englee, La Scie, King's Point, and now in Springdale.
In every school Roger has developed young, talented individuals into
top-notch athletes. His team has
won provincial championships and has captured an incredible ten team
sportsmanship awards.
His
willingness to serve or to give of his time, talent, and tireless energy has
been simply incredible. As an
athletic director at Indian River High, Roger has developed a well-rounded
athletic program which has achieved the gold star status for seven
consecutive years.
I
ask all hon. members to help me convey congratulations to Roger Jacobs, a
teacher-coach who indeed made a difference.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. George's – Stephenville East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. REID:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to
congratulate a team of MUN Alumni who took top prize in the 2014 G20 Global
Business Challenge, a prestigious international graduate business
competition which took place in Australia earlier this month.
The
G20 Global Business Challenge is a unique and highly innovative competition
that attracts top graduate students from leading business schools and
universities. Teams were
challenged to develop an innovative solution to use, recycle, and/or manage
water to achieve large-scale impact.
Earlier this year, the team passed the preliminary round of the challenge,
where they competed against forty other groups from eighteen countries
before being chosen as one of the six top finalists.
The team consisted of Dave Winsor, Dan Goossens, Janine Brophy, Lica
Christensen and the team coach, Professor Peggy Coady, an associate Dean in
the Faculty of Business Administration.
Professor Coady said winning the competition is a testament to Memorial's
high caliber students, graduates, and programming.
I
ask all members to join with me in congratulating the MUN team on winning
the G20 Global Business Challenge competition and taking the top prize of
$100,000.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On
the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, I am
happy to congratulate Jenny Wright and all incredible feminists who worked
tirelessly to improve our society through Status of Women councils across
the Province.
Jenny and her sisters at the St. John's Status of Women Council recently
hosted women from across the Province for Building Allies in Dangerous
Times, a gathering that saw feminist activists discuss issues affecting
women in their communities. They
found a great deal of common ground.
They talked about housing, mental health and addictions, violence,
lack of access to health care and child care, and the Family Violence
Intervention Court. They shared
advice and they made plans for how to proceed in the future.
These strong women are fearless as well as tireless.
They do a gargantuan job with resources that have not increased in
several years. They are setting their
own agendas, based on the needs of their own communities and slowly but
surely they – I should say “we” because I share their struggles, feel their
frustrations and celebrate their triumphs – they are getting things done.
Brava, Jenny Wright and sisters.
Thank you for all you do for the women of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, I would like
to recognize the accomplishments of an amazing individual in my community.
Ed Moyst has dedicated himself to the sport of soccer since 1958 and
has excelled as a player, a coach, an official and as a builder of the
sport. He is a founding member
of the Mount Pearl Soccer Association, was elected as first chairperson and
has been on the executive committee of the association ever since; twice as
chairperson, twice as director, once as vice-chairperson, and the remaining
years thereafter as administrator.
He
holds a Level 3 technical coaching certificate, a Class 2 certificate as an
official, and has officiated soccer games for over thirty years.
His many accomplishments have not gone unnoticed, as he has been
inducted into the St. John's, Mount Pearl, and Newfoundland and Labrador
Soccer Halls of Fame.
This
past September, I was honoured to attend an event at the Team Gushue Complex
in which the Upper Smallwood Soccer Field was appropriately renamed the Ed
Moyst Soccer Field.
I
would ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Ed
Moyst on his accomplishments and for his ongoing contribution to the sport
of soccer in the City of Mount Pearl.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber Valley.
MR. BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in
this hon. House today to congratulate thirteen students from Elwood Regional
High School in Deer Lake who recently attended We Day events in Waterloo,
Ontario.
We
Day is an annual series of stadium-sized events that brings together
world-renowned speakers and youth to encourage participants to find their
passion and strive to create the change they want to see.
Tickets for We Day events cannot be purchased, they have to be earned
by taking on a local and a global action.
This
event included over 7,000 students along with several guest speakers and
musicians. The group from Elwood
High School stated they were overwhelmed by the empowering and inspiring
message that was delivered by all those in attendance at the event.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Elwood
students: Dylan Cross, Daniel Williams, Andrew Lodge, William Chubbs, Kyle
Hiscock, Becky Maher, Sydney Park, Emily Finlay, Catlin Giles, Sophia
Hewitt, Shania Turnbull, Kate Compton, and Jenna Langdon who, along with
their Principal Peter Burt, and teacher Jillian Cross, earned the privilege
to attend this tremendous event.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating these
students and teachers of Elwood Regional High School in Deer Lake on this
great accomplishment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I rise
in this hon. House today to recognize Jack Goldsworthy, a Grade 6 student at
Roncalli Elementary School in Virginia Waters district.
He is one of twenty-two students from across Canada selected to
attend Canada's History for Kids, Young Citizen's Forum in Ottawa this fall.
This
program focuses on citizenship and is a complementary component to the
school's annual heritage fair.
Jack's video, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle:
The Original Way of Life looked at how people in the past wasted
nothing, reused what they could and used recycling as a necessary way of
life.
In
October, Jack toured our Nation's capital in which he was joined by fellow
winners from across Canada to explore Ottawa which included museum and
walking tours, and many other cultural activities.
Jack also participated in a brainstorming session to identify as many
important people, events and moments in history that could be commemorated
as part of Canada's birthday in 2017.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing Jack on his
achievement as an ambassador of the program and epitomizing the youth of our
Province as curious in Canada's history and what it means to be a Canadian
citizen.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Does the Member for St.
John's South have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER:
By leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
Leave.
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South with leave.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
would like to recognize the Community Food Sharing Association and the work
they do throughout the year to help ensure that those in need receive a
little extra help.
With
the Christmas season approaching and the extra spending demands on families,
the need for donations at the food bank are greater than that of any other
time of the year. The Community
Food Sharing Association serves 27,000 people every month, 38 per cent of
those are children.
This
year, there is a shortfall of almost 60,000 pounds of food.
There are thirty empty cages that are usually full by the end of
November. There will be a
challenge to fill the need.
I
urge people who can afford to share even one item of food to help those who
cannot afford it. Help make
Christmas a little less stressful for the families who need it.
Please donate.
In
consultation with the Community Food Sharing Association, there is a
one-hour food drive at 5:20 on Wednesday, December 3, here at Confederation
Building,
starting at the rear parking lot of the East Block.
I encourage anyone interested in helping to get involved.
The Community Food Sharing Association will help
provide pick up of the food.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise in this House today to advise hon.
members on the progress of this year's Home Heating Rebate program.
The Home Heating Rebate program helps thousands of Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians each winter.
This year, the Home Heating Rebate, along with the
Residential Energy Rebate, will see a combined total investment of $62
million. The Home Heating Rebate
is available to residents of the Province who directly incur costs to heat
their home.
Eligible households with an adjusted family income of
$35,000 or less qualify for a maximum rebate of $250 – with a maximum rebate
of $500 for coastal Labrador.
The Residential Energy Rebate is available to all
households in Newfoundland and Labrador and provides a point-of-sale rebate
equivalent to the 8 per cent provincial portion of the 13 per cent
Harmonized Sales Tax charged on the consumption of energy for residential
purposes.
Mr. Speaker, as a government, we are extremely proud of
both the Home Heating Rebate and the Residential Energy Rebate.
These important programs put cash back into the hands of individuals
and families, helping them meet the costs of staying warm.
I am pleased to inform hon. members that since
launching this year's program, applications have been received are on par
with last year and staff at the Department of Finance are now approving the
applications and sending out the rebates.
Mr. Speaker, we continue to ensure that several avenues
are available for people to access applications for the Home Heating Rebate.
Details and application forms can be found on the Department of
Finance Web site, or they can call toll-free 1-855-223-7432, or they can
email
homeheatprogram@gov.nl.ca.
Application forms have also appeared in newspapers, at
regional offices of Department of Advanced Education and Skills, at Service
NL Centres across the Province, and at the Seniors Resource Centre here in
St. John's.
Mr. Speaker, last year, approximately 58,000 households
received rebates from the Home Heating Rebate program.
Once again, this program is helping people throughout Newfoundland
and Labrador meet the cost of heating their homes and staying warm.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement today. Mr. Speaker,
this time of year presents extra hardships for many families with Christmas
on the horizon and rising heating costs to protect against the winter cold.
Providing such rebates help low-income families and seniors manage a
little better.
I am sure, as MHAs, we all receive calls from
constituents wondering when the rebate will be announced.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, the Home Heating Rebate was announced on
October 24. The year before, it
was announced on December 3.
This year, it is November 25.
I would encourage government to commit to a fixed date
each year when the rebate is announced so people relying on the rebate are
not left waiting, wondering, and worrying even more.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement. Once again, I ask
government to remove the yearly uncertainty and anxiety the public suffers
because this government refuses to make the Home Heating Rebate a permanent
annual program with a fixed date.
Our offices get calls starting early in the fall from
people anxious to know if they can count on the rebate, which they
increasingly depend upon with the rising costs of heating.
In addition, government refuses even to respond to our call for
people whose heat is included in their rent to also qualify for the rebate.
Government needs to get in touch with the people of this Province and
address these two pressing concerns.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Mr. Speaker, as 2014 draws to a close, I rise in this hon. House to
acknowledge a tremendous milestone that was celebrated this year –
the sixtieth anniversary of this Province's
provincial parks.
Throughout this past summer, we celebrated with
visitors to our parks during special events for Canada Day, Parks Day, and a
Parks Proud launch to celebrate this significant achievement in our
Province. I am told all of these
activities were successful and a wonderful time was had by all.
Employees of the Parks and Natural Areas Division of
the Department of Environment and Conversation promoted this sixty-year
achievement by wearing Parks Proud anniversary shirts and encouraging
visitors to join and to celebrate sixty incredible years.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial government continues to
establish, protect, and manage our parks as natural habitats for future
generations while offering unique nature experiences like hiking, camping,
and outdoor activities for everyone to enjoy.
The provincial parks system was established in 1954
with the creation of Sir Richard Squires Memorial Provincial Park near
Cormack, and has expanded to a network of thirteen camping parks, seven day
use parks, the T'Railway Provincial Park, Main River Waterway Provincial
Park, and ten park reserves. The
Province also has two wilderness reserves and eighteen ecological reserves
that protect significant seabird colonies, rare plants, and significant
fossil sites.
Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank all the parks
staff in the Parks and Natural Areas Division who worked every day to
protect, preserve and promote our natural heritage, while providing a
diverse range of outdoor recreational opportunities Province-wide.
As an outdoor enthusiast myself, I encourage every
visitor to celebrate, discover, explore, understand and appreciate our
Province and all it has to offer.
You can learn more about our provincial parks on the
provincial government Web site.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. George's – Stephenville East.
MR. REID:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the minister in celebrating the
sixtieth anniversary of the provincial park system in this Province.
We have a well-developed park system in our Province and it is more
extensive than in most other provinces, and it is something we should be
very proud of.
I would like to congratulate the staff who work at
these parks over the years and the fine job they have done over that period.
The parks are an important part of
our heritage and quality of life in this Province and we should not allow
them to deteriorate. In this
regard we should ensure that the Newfoundland T'Railway park is not allowed
to fall in disrepair. I am
hearing that government may be considering closing sections of this park.
I hope that is not the case, Mr. Speaker, but I heard that it is a
possibility that is being considered.
We need to continue to innovate in the way we highlight
our areas of natural beauty. In
this regard, government is three years late in releasing the natural areas
systems plan that they promised in 2011.
Mr. Speaker, congratulations on sixty years of the
parks.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. MURPHY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement here today.
Congratulations to our parks staff who sometimes do so much with little
resources that have been cut to the bone from past Budgets.
We also cannot forget that over the years past governments have
chosen to close a lot of the provincial parks in our system, dump them from
our inventory, and they also privatized others.
Other ideas government had have been forgotten.
When do we get to see the promised protected area strategy, for
example? Mr. Speaker, let us not
forget that government is falling down in recognizing development over
ecology and the environment. Why
the minister is intent (inaudible) –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal
Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. RUSSELL:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the thirty-ninth Annual Labrador
Creative Arts Festival. Taking
centre stage at the Lawrence O'Brien Arts Centre from November 19 to
November 25, the festival is a celebration of the arts
that brings together young Labradorians from all regions and all
cultures.
Inclusive and innovative, this event showcases plays written and performed
by Labrador students. The
festival also features visiting artists, from many different disciplines,
who venture to the Big Land every year to share their talents and to pass on
their creative knowledge to the youth through workshops and hands-on
training.
I am
pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that this year's students visiting from
Villanova Junior High in Conception Bay South are also participating in this
year's event.
Aside from helping young people develop their artistic abilities, the
Labrador Creative Arts Festival fosters creativity, self-confidence,
teamwork and leadership. Mr.
Speaker, these characteristics serve as a foundation upon which young men
and women can build future achievements and become leaders in their
communities, future fields of study and in their careers.
A
shining example of how this festival helps develop our young people is Ms
Mckenzie Hutchings of North West River who has been a regular participant in
the Labrador Creative Arts Festival.
Recently, Ms Hutchings was crowned Miss Achievement Newfoundland and
Labrador and credits her involvement in the festival with giving her the
confidence and experience to participate in the pageant and to succeed in
her many, many endeavours.
As a
proud Labradorian, it is always a pleasure to highlight Labrador and the
accomplishments and vision of its people, especially its young people, Mr.
Speaker. Staging the Labrador
Creative Arts Festival each year is a massive undertaking and it is because
of the students, teachers, parents, and organizers involved that this annual
event is possible.
This
festival is a wonderful celebration of young people and the arts and, as
this year's festival draws to a close, I ask all hon. members of this House
to join me in congratulating Ms Mckenzie Hutchings and all of this year's
participants.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
It is good to see him rise.
I would like to see that happen in Question Period.
Mr.
Speaker, the Labrador Creative Arts Festival is Canada's longest running
children's festival. I think
that is a statement worth mentioning here today.
The artistic version of the Labrador Creative Arts Festival is to
provide a forum allowing young people in Labrador to write, produce, and
direct plays about issues that affect their communities and their region.
I
think over the last thirty-nine years there has been some 500 plays that
have been written. There have
been over 530 visiting artists from every province and territory in Canada,
as well as the United States and Europe.
This year, as the hon. member mentioned, I am proud to welcome the
students from Villanova Junior High from my hon. colleague, the Member for
Conception Bay South, who are attending the Labrador Creative Arts Festival.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
I thank the minister for
an advance copy of his statement.
Congratulations to all the visionaries involved in the Labrador Creative
Arts Festival. It is indeed a
massive undertaking by students, teachers, parents, and other organizers.
It is often through the arts where we can dare to envision a better
world, better and more egalitarian communities where everyone has what they
need to fully live.
Bravo, Mckenzie Hutchings; you make us all proud.
Bravo, Labrador Creative Arts Festival visionaries.
Lead us on; help us envision a future where no one is left behind.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last
week, the Premier stated that he did not have the information on the cost of
the environmental liabilities at the former Abitibi mill and properties in
Central Newfoundland. The AG
pegged the cost at $265 million.
That was $165 million more than the previous government estimates.
I
ask the Premier: Now that you have had the chance to look for the
information and get briefed, can you update the House today on the exact
cost of the government's mistaken expropriation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I
thank the hon. member opposite for bringing this up again.
There have been a variety of estimates looked at with regard to the
environmental cost.
I
would like to point out to the member opposite, while this House unanimously
approved the expropriation of the assets, I would like to point out first
and foremost that there were significant assets that returned to the
Province as a result of that expropriation.
We retained timber rights for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
We also retained the power generation rights for Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, Mr. Speaker. That
was significant for us as a Province.
I
can also tell the member opposite, that there is a significant piece of work
underway with regard to the remediation of the former mill site.
We hope to have an announcement on that in the very near future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
remind the Premier, even though it was unanimous, no one in this House, when
they were given that briefing, expected that the building itself was part of
that expropriation.
Mr.
Speaker, last spring government admitted that the old Abitibi mill was on
the list to be demolished. At
that point they had to establish the priorities.
We know the RFP for the demolition closed in August, but we have not
heard much about that since.
I
ask the Premier: When will the old mill that you expropriated be demolished,
and at what cost to taxpayers?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
The
removal of the former mill property is an important matter that is
continuing to be worked by our government.
It is an active file. It
is under active review.
As I
said in my first answer, we hope to be in a position in the very near future
to make an announcement in regard to that removal of the property.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, six years is a long time to be active, when the people in Central
Newfoundland have been asking for this demolition to occur.
Mr.
Speaker, government announced last April that they were dealing with Rentech
on Central and Northern Peninsula fibre resources but we have heard very
little about that since.
I
ask the Premier: It has been six years since the expropriation, and seven
months since potential with Rentech was announced.
What is the status of this proposal?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, following
the expropriation and the protection of the timber rights for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly for the Central region, government
engaged in an Expression of Interest.
We went through three EOIs.
Through that process, Mr. Speaker, very challenging issues, I guess,
with the industry right now and over the past number of years.
We
did have a proponent come forward in Rentech.
We are working with them.
As I indicated last week in the House, Mr. Speaker, we are not there yet.
They have multiple challenges as well they are working on.
It is suffice to say we are still working together and trying to find
a way through so we can ensure that we are able to utilize the resources,
but also to make sure, Mr. Speaker, our commitment, that we will make sure
the resource benefits the people of Newfoundland and Labrador first and
foremost.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
community of Wabush has experienced a hard time with the closure of the
Scully Mine and the potential closure of the Bloom Lake operation.
Alderon was supposed to help offset some of the effects of the Wabush
mine closure, but it is becoming clear that this project is delayed, at
least for the foreseeable future.
I
ask the Premier: Without another mining operation ready to replace Wabush
mines, what are the plans for the community of Wabush?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
What
is happening in Wabush and what is happening with commodity prices that is
having a significant impact on those operations is a matter that is being
watched very closely by our government.
I
can tell you that a variety of ministers are engaged in what is taking place
in Wabush, including the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental
Affairs, which has been having discussions with the Town of Wabush.
As well, the Minister of Natural Resources, who is engaged with
business partners who have rights and ownership rights and operating
responsibilities in the area.
I
can tell the member opposite, and tell the members of the House of Assembly,
we are having constant communications.
We are tracking and following what is happening.
We are having communications with people within the community.
As well, Mr. Speaker, I point out that officials from Advanced
Education and Skills and the minister have been engaged with partners in the
Wabush area and we will continue to do that work as we move forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With
the closure of Wabush Mines, the Town of Wabush itself is losing $2.4
million in tax revenue. When
Abitibi closed in Grand Falls-Windsor and in Stephenville, government
covered some of the lost tax revenue for the town for up to three years.
I
ask the Premier: Will you commit to a similar arrangement for the Town of
Wabush?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Again as I pointed out in my first answer to this topic, the Minister of
Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs has been having discussions with the
town, with the mayor. I can tell
you that there is a plan underway for the continuation of those discussions
in face-to-face meetings. I
think $2.1 million actually is the number – I could be corrected on that,
but we are having a discussion on that.
We are aware of what has happened in the past in other types of
circumstances.
This
is about supporting the community.
This is about supporting the Town of Wabush so they can continue as a
town, they can continue to function, they can live up to their obligations,
and they can continue to provide the services within a municipality that the
residents demand from the town.
As
pointed out by the member opposite, we understand the potential significant
impacts on their budgets for the coming year.
We are continuing to work with the town, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
I remind the Premier it
is about generating and creating a budget, too.
This decision is something that this community is relying on and
waiting on from this government.
Nalcor has admitted that the dome being built over the Muskrat Falls Project
is not ready and there is no date set for its completion, this despite the
fact the winter season has begun in Labrador.
I
ask the Premier: Why has the construction of this dome been delayed?
Will it affect the overall project schedule?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, there has
been some discussion this week and certainly in the media as well around the
dome as we call it, the cover that is to help with the scheduling and the
work throughout the winter. It
is partially done on generation Units 1 and 2.
It is not yet completed.
The
focus of the work right now is on the spillway, but we have been reassured
by Nalcor officials that there is no anticipation of scheduled delays at
this point. They are continuing
to work, as I said, on a spillway, and they continue to work on the dome,
particularly around generation Units 1 and 2.
Phase 2 of that will be obviously for generation Units 3 and 4.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At
Decision Gate 3, which was in October 2012, the starting reference point for
Muskrat Falls power was for 2017; that is when power would be available.
Nalcor's own documents now, as of August this year, show that power
for Muskrat Falls will not be available until 2018.
I
ask the Premier: With this delay in the project, or if there is no delay,
how is this now affecting 2018's schedule affecting the overall cost of the
project?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, there is
extensive oversight on the progress of the Muskrat Falls Project.
An independent engineer provides reports to the federal government as
well as to us. We will make that
public, as we have done with so much information around Muskrat Falls.
Certainly the schedule of Muskrat Falls has been a topic of debate,
but it has been clear in what has been conveyed so far to the public,
without question, it is on schedule for power in late 2017, Mr. Speaker.
We
have no indication that schedule has changed.
If we do, Mr. Speaker, we will gladly make it public.
Beyond that, I know there are thousands of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians working in Labrador, working in Muskrat Falls; they are doing a
good job. By all accounts, there
is good work happening, and it is progressing so that we will reap the
benefits of that river for many generations to come.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, with the
recent allegations of negligence against management and staff of HMP, I ask
the Minister of Justice: Has the Department of Justice reached out to
private solicitors to provide advice and representation in this matter?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
member opposite raises a very important question.
As many people would know, there is a very significant trial ongoing
right now at the courthouse.
Many very serious allegations have been made against a number of employees.
I can confirm there are allegations against four senior people within
the correction system. Two
attorneys have been retained; one is representing three management employees
and one attorney is representing the interests of a unionized employee.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask
the Minister of Justice: Can they confirm who these two attorneys are?
I guess, obviously, whether they are outside of the Department of
Justice. Can they table their
contracts?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, thank you
again for the opportunity to respond.
As I
said a few months ago, very serious allegations have been made and one of
the roles that government finds itself in from time to time is ensuring the
rights of our employees are protected until such a time as there is
resolution brought forward.
In
this particular case, I can confirm that the two attorneys have been
retained. Erin Breen is
representing three management employees and Jerome Kennedy is representing a
unionized employee. The terms of
their employment, Mr. Speaker, for members opposite, would be a standard
agreement, standard retainer rates that government uses from time to time on
a regular basis when we use outside legal advice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, can the
Minister of Justice confirm why the department went outside their own
solicitors in this particular case, and will they confirm that these two
contracts will be tabled for the House of Assembly?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
I am actually responding
in my capacity as Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, for the record, not
as a minister of that particular department.
I
will say to the member opposite that I will endeavour to see if there are,
in actual fact, contracts available to individuals and if there are
particular contracts signed, then I will be prepared to table them.
I
can also say, though, that this is not unusual.
I could probably provide a list of hundreds of instances where the
Department of Justice, on occasion, reaches outside into the community for
representation on any number of files.
It happens almost on a daily basis and this particular circumstance
is no different than many instances in the past.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, government
is spending over $1 million every year on schools that are vacant and no
longer in use. While these funds
are being wasted on empty schools, students with special education needs are
going without supports, school guidance is under resourced, and the list
goes on and on and on.
I
ask the minister: When do you plan to stop running these vacant schools and
spend that $1 million on educating and supporting our students instead?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, disposition of school properties is not an easy matter.
It is not as simple as the member opposite makes it out to be, but it
certainly is something that we have turned our attention to and it is
certainly a file that we are moving forward on.
Some
of the factors that impact disposition have to do with clear title to the
land, clear title to the buildings and so on, whether or not it is Crown
land on which the building happens to have been erected and so on.
Mr. Speaker, whether there is a Crown grant applicable is another
point of interest here that we have to look at and, of course, environmental
factors.
Whilst we share his view that we would like to expedite the disposition of
these buildings, it takes more time than he would imagine.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Well, Mr. Speaker, this
government is spending over $100,000 alone at the former St. Anthony
Elementary School site. Now,
that is a school building which is slated to be demolished all together.
So that is very simple.
Clearly, that $100,000 a year could be far better spent.
I
ask the minister: Why are you wasting this money on empty buildings instead
of investing it in programs, supports, and services in schools where the
money should be spent?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we share his concern.
We would like, as I said earlier, to be able to expedite these processes,
but we have to be responsible in how it is that we go about it.
We cannot simply take insurance off buildings, Mr. Speaker.
We cannot create those situations in community.
We have at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, in process, fourteen
former schools which are being removed.
We have four regional board offices that are being removed, and we
will continue to advance this file as quickly as we can possibly do it.
He
is right about the St. Anthony school.
We intend to have that school removed so we can make way for a
softball field. That has always
been our plan, it will continue to be our plan, and we will do that as
quickly as possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In
2009, government budgeted $20 million to outfit the Confederation Building
with blue windows. They said the
project would conclude in late 2012.
In May of this year, the minister said the budget had ballooned to
$56 million.
I
ask the minister: What has been spent on this project to date, and when will
the repairs be complete?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
is an ongoing project. As was
noted in this House over the last number of months, this was a project that
was started to be a certain thing in replacing the windows.
Once we got into the construction phase, we realized there was a lot
of extra work that needed to be done.
Obviously, the costing related to that became more costly.
We
are investing in a piece of infrastructure and an asset for the people in
this Province that will be around for the next fifty to a hundred years.
We are assessing exactly what else has to be done here, and we will
have the final numbers in the next number of months when this job is
completed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, it is the
same answer over and over again, the same as they announce projects over and
over again, and the same money over and over again.
Mr.
Speaker, I would remind the minister that this department engaged external
architects and engineers and began extensive daily inspections of the
windows and brickwork in preparation of this renovation.
I
ask the minister: How can the public have any confidence in government's
ability to manage projects when you have already let this project triple in
price, and you have already let it go two years beyond its completion date?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We
have an obligation to make sure that the employees and the people who use
this building do it in a safe manner and that it is up to standards for
people to be able to work in a good environment.
This is about engagement here, Mr. Speaker.
It is about offering service to the people.
I do
not know what my hon. member across would like to do.
Maybe they would have the windows falling out of the building.
Maybe they would not have people in a safe environment.
We do not do that, Mr. Speaker.
We provide a safe environment and a good asset for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
The
minister is right, there are absolutely obligations that government has.
Today is the UN's International Day of the Elimination of Violence
Against Women. This government
cut the Family Violence Intervention Court to save $500,000.
Meanwhile, they have overspent on Confederation Building, and have
buildings in St. Anthony that are being lit and not demolished.
I
ask the Premier: Don't you see how poor planning trickles down to the most
vulnerable who have to be pay for it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I have
heard a lot in my day, but to take the planning that is done on building and
construction projects and equate it to the very serious matter of family
violence in this Province, I say to the member opposite, she should not do
it.
I
also have to say, Mr. Speaker, I read her release today as well.
I found it upsetting when I read her release today, that in any way,
shape, or form is to take issue with the very good work that volunteers do
around this Province in consultation with government, with their own
agencies, and partner organizations in the community to fight family
violence and violence throughout our Province; groups such as Transition
House, which do very good work around this Province.
MR. O'BRIEN:
The John Howard Society.
PREMIER DAVIS:
Groups like the John
Howard Society, Mr. Speaker, provide great service and partner with a
variety of government departments, here in our government, in order to
provide the best services it can to the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, if the
Premier was listening to front-line staff, he would know.
If he was listening to front-line workers, then why isn't he willing
–
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS C. BENNETT:
I ask his minister,
Minister Manning: If it is important to raise awareness around violence
against women, why are they not releasing the report on sexual exploitation
that your own government commissioned?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I can
tell you that not releasing that report was to protect the best interests of
people of our Province, the people who are identified, who are known
throughout that report. It is
about protecting the people who are very vulnerable in this Province.
That is what we need to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
I can tell you, Mr.
Speaker, if bringing the Family Violence Intervention Court – if I thought
for a minute that bringing that back was going to stop violence, violence
against women, violence in relationships, if I thought for a second it was
going to stop violence, I would have brought it back by now, Mr. Speaker, I
can assure you that.
I
can tell you, it takes a variety and a suite of programs, it takes a variety
of services, it takes a community, it takes a number of stakeholders working
together in order to protect the best interests of those most vulnerable in
our Province, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to continue to work with all of
those stakeholders to protect women and children and families in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, as the
Premier knows, in other jurisdictions that report, and reports like it, are
released to the front-line workers who are asking for it.
The
estimated cost of family violence to the Canadian economy is $220 per
person; 220 times more expensive than the $1 per person to operate the
Family Violence Intervention Court that was in place in this Province and
saving women and children from abuse.
I
ask the Premier: Will you properly observe the International Day for the
Elimination of Violence against Women and commit here and now to reinstate
that court?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, the
member opposite is very well aware of my position on the Family Violence
Intervention Court. That is why
officials in the Department of Justice are doing their due diligence to look
at the Family Violence Intervention Court as it used to exist and how it
could potentially exist in the future, because the Family Violence
Intervention Court serviced people of St. John's, and the greater St. John's
area only. It did not provide
services to the people of Port aux Basques.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
It did not provide
services to the people of St. Anthony.
It did not provide services to the people of Labrador West, to Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, to coastal Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, it did not provide services to anyone outside of the
greater St. John's area.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER DAVIS:
I believe the Family
Violence Intervention Court has the potential to provide services beyond the
greater St. John's area. That is
what I have asked the department to look at.
That is the work they are doing, Mr. Speaker.
I
can tell you, through my lifetime I have seen my share of family violence
and the effects of it, Mr. Speaker, and nobody in this House of Assembly
feels more strongly about protecting the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
than I do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Mr. Speaker, it has been
over two years since this government implemented the ban on all harvesting
of the George River caribou herd.
A five-year ban was implemented in 2012 and would be revisited in
2014.
I
ask the minister: Now that it is almost 2015, what is the status of
government's update regarding harvesting of the George River caribou?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Mr. Speaker, our
government has been very proactive when it comes to the George River caribou
herd. The five-year ban on
hunting came in place in 2013.
We have allocated $1 million in last year's Budget to monitor the herd, to
do a census of the herd to see where it is to.
Mr.
Speaker, there were fifty-seven populations across Canada that are
undergoing similar stresses as the George River caribou herd.
It is a mystery to many people, but we are gathering information.
We are making sure we are doing the right work around that and
understanding what is happening.
We
are going to continue with that ban, and we are going to be diligent about
that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Mr. Speaker, no one has
been able to identify the reason for the decline, but those involved with
monitoring the George River caribou herd, including the Ungava Peninsula
Caribou Aboriginal Roundtable, clearly define that there is much more work
that is needed to be done to find out what caused the decline.
I
ask the minister: Outside of current investments that have failed to find
out the decline of the George River caribou herd, what is his department
prepared to do to find out the reasons for the decline in the George River
caribou herd – one of our most valuable resources?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Mr. Speaker, we agree
with the member opposite. It is
a valuable resource; we need to find a solution and an answer to exactly
what is going on. This is a
global phenomenon in a lot of respects.
Research is ongoing. We
have allocated $1 million in this year's Budget to study the herd going
forward, collared animal tracking, that sort of thing, Mr. Speaker.
We
are taking the situation very seriously.
It is a very complex issue.
It looks like preliminary information shows there are cycles 100
years ago that caribou were about at this population as well.
There is a long history. We have
a lot of information. We have to
analyze that information and have a strategy to move forward.
We are working on that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Ontario has agreed to a federal-provincial public child care program.
Canadian provinces have been waiting twenty years for a national
child care program.
I
ask the Premier: What is this government prepared to do to make a
cost-shared public child care program a reality?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Child care is being used more in Newfoundland and Labrador today than ever
was before. I can tell you that
we, as a government, have implemented a suite of programs that were designed
to improve child care opportunities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador for
the families who want to avail of those services and the benefits that come
with availing of such services.
Mr.
Speaker, I can tell you, since 2011 to 2014 there has been talk in this
House, I should point out, in the last week or so since the fall sitting,
about early childhood education and the recent report that came out.
I can tell you, of all the provinces in Canada, Newfoundland and
Labrador made more gains than any other province in Canada in child care.
That speaks to the commitment of our government in improving child
care services for the people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Canadian studies have proven for every dollar spent on early childhood
education, the benefits can be as high as $2.78.
So I
ask the Premier: Why will this government not follow the model of Quebec and
fund a program proven to make economic sense?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I
know that the debates continue with the model that has been followed by
Quebec. Some would say that it
created economic challenges and difficulties for the Province of Quebec, and
great economic challenges for the province itself.
So,
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that we have made great gains in early childhood
education. Just recently, as I
mentioned yesterday in the House, when I created our new departments, I took
Early Childhood Education and moved it into what was previously the
Department of Education – a move that has been praised by industry experts
and industry stakeholders throughout the Province and outside of the
Province and throughout Canada, Mr. Speaker.
They are the kind of steps, a step-by-step approach, to make
improvements to early childhood education.
We
have made good improvements – we have made better improvements than any
other Province in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and we still have work to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Premier: Why is his government stopping short of creating a public child
care service for the families of this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, in the suite of programs we have created, we have created financial
supports and assistance to not-for-profit organizations around Newfoundland
and Labrador who see a child care need in their own communities, and we
provided assistance to them financially and also expert supports to them so
they can create child care spaces and opportunities in communities
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
It
is proving to be a very successful program, Mr. Speaker.
I can tell you, as I said earlier, as we continue to make those
improvements – the biggest improvements amongst provinces in Canada between
2011 and 2014 – we still have work to do, and we are going to still do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, every member
on this side of the House supports the immediate reinstatement of the Family
Violence Intervention Court, and last Thursday at least thirteen government
members, including the Premier, stood to support my call for the immediate
reinstatement of the court – a majority of the members of this House,
representing a majority of the people of this Province.
I
ask the Premier: Will he carry out the will of this House and immediately
reinstate the Family Violence Intervention Court, a court that worked, and a
court that did prevent violence against women and children?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I
thank the member opposite for bringing this matter to the floor of the House
again. We just had a discussion
about it and I have already articulated to the House, but I will repeat it
again. The Department of Justice
and Public Safety is doing work around the Family Violence Intervention
Court, or a similar model that used to exist, versus what could exist.
We are looking at what is the potential for broadening the aspects of
the Family Violence Intervention Court so it can benefit people throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador.
What
members are asking for is to reinstate what used to exist.
What we are looking at is finding a better way forward, Mr. Speaker,
to find the best opportunities for families who live with family violence.
The impacts on families, on women and children, are too great to do
anything else.
Mr.
Speaker, we have to work to find the best that we can have, find the best
programs available, and that is what we are working to find.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. WISEMAN:
Mr. Speaker, I give
notice that I will move that the House Resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider a resolution relating to the advancing or
guaranteeing of certain loans made under the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957.
(Bill 31)
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of
motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
have a petition. To the hon.
House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament
assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS there are many individuals within our Province who have mobility
issues; and
WHEREAS it is extremely important as an inclusive society to ensure
appropriate access to both public and private facilities and institutions;
and
WHEREAS a key component in the provision of access for persons with mobility
issues is the provision of regulated blue zones; and
WHEREAS our provincial government implemented new blue zone regulations two
years ago but it failed to adequately enforce them; and
WHEREAS this failure of our government to adequately enforce blue zone
regulations has resulted in the continued denial of appropriate access for
persons with disabilities to many public and private facilities;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
start enforcing its blue zone regulations in order to provide appropriate
access for persons with mobility issues.
As
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this is an issue which I brought up in the last sitting of the
House of Assembly. I will
continue to do so.
I do
want to acknowledge, though, that I did have a meeting with the former
Minister of Service NL a few months back now.
We had a good discussion on this.
He made some commitments to try to improve things, and I thank him
for that.
We
actually did see an announcement a while back where there was some funding
provided to the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities to do basically an
awareness and education program for businesses as to what their requirements
are for blue zones. I view that
as a very positive thing. I
certainly thank the former minister for doing that.
That
being said though, Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to educate the public, it is
one thing to educate business; it is quite another to actually enforce the
regulations as they exist. We
still have a number of government-owned facilities, schools, and so on which
are not in compliance with blue zone regulations.
There are still a ton of businesses out there that are not in
compliance either.
Part
of the role of the government in this regard is enforcement.
I encourage the government to be more diligent in enforcing these
regulations in order to provide access to persons with disabilities to
sustain facilities that we can all avail of.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS Route 510 from L'Anse au Clair to Red Bay is in deplorable condition
and requires immediate upgrading; and
WHEREAS the condition of the highway is causing undue damage to vehicles
using the highway, and has now become a safety hazard for the travelling
public; and
WHEREAS both residential and commercial traffic has increased dramatically
with the opening of the Trans-Labrador Highway and increased development in
Labrador; and
WHEREAS cold patching is no longer adequate as a means of repair;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
immediately allocate resources to Route 510 from L'Anse au Clair to Red Bay
that allows for permanent resurfacing of the highway.
As
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this is about a seventy-six kilometre stretch of highway that is in
a very dilapidated condition. I
have been standing on my feet.
This is my third sitting in the House now calling attention to this stretch
of highway.
Every year we seem to get inundated with a lot of cold patch, Mr. Speaker.
It is just a band-aid solution.
I know there are a lot of requests that go in for roadwork around the
Province, but I believe we need to allocate resources based on need.
If that is being done, there is no doubt about it, that this section
of the highway will be very high on the radar.
Mr. Speaker, not only do we have residents and commercial traffic,
but we have ambulances that are driving that stretch of road every day.
We have school children from L'Anse au Clair to Red Bay who are
driving on this bus every day.
I
have met with the current Minister of Transportation and Works, and I have
met with the other two ministers, Mr. Speaker, and I will continue.
I hope when the Budget is being put together this fall that they will
look at the serious condition of this road.
We have heavy traffic, Mr. Speaker, with all of the work going on in
Muskrat Falls, and the contractors and subcontractors driving on this road
making it much worse.
It
is a very serious, serious safety issue, Mr. Speaker, and we are all
fortunate that we have not seen loss of lives yet on this stretch of road.
That is what I fear will happen if we do not give immediate attention
to this section of the road in the near future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
The Straits – White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS Route 430, the Viking Trail, is the primary highway on the Great
Northern Peninsula; and
WHEREAS the current road condition of approximately sixty kilometres between
Plum Point and Eddies Cove East have sections that are in dire need of
resurfacing and/or repaving; and
WHEREAS it is government's obligation to provide basic infrastructure to all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and
WHEREAS an improved road network on a primary highway is needed to enhance
road safety and help with local commerce as well as deal with increasing
passenger traffic levels in this section of the highway;
We
the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to
allocate funds under the Provincial Roads Program to pave this section of
Route 430.
As
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this section of road has seen robust activity and increasing
passenger traffic, especially with the Strait of Belle Isle ferry crossing
at St. Barbe, when you look at that section of the highway with the high
level of volume of heavy equipment going into Southern Labrador, as well as
going to St. Anthony, the amount of international shipping that is taking
place in the region, and you look at the hub of commerce that is happening
around Flower's Cove and Plum Point.
There are two schools there.
There is the regional hospital.
There are a number of regional services that are offered in this
region.
Government has invested building a four-lane highway in the area around the
Strait of Belle Isle Health Centre, the newly constructed facility,
multi-million dollars there. As
well as looking at the residential and commercial district of Flower's Cove.
We have Muskrat Falls; the generating station is coming
across with the cable crossing in Shoal Cove.
There has been a lot of
activity happening there, but the road has been eroded based on the
activity. What has been laid is
one strip of pavement, basically, right in the middle of the road.
No way is that going to be safe throughout the year.
We need to actually put down pavement, and when we do it – that
section of the highway has not been replaced in decades.
Mr.
Speaker, we certainly need to see some investment made in our primary
highways if we are going to retain the tens of thousands of tourists who
travel through, and the commuters who use that highway on a regional basis.
It is something that must happen.
It has to remain a priority.
It is a main highway. We
are not even talking about a trunk road or a side road on any level.
This is the primary artery on the Great Northern Peninsula.
It covers off three districts, Mr. Speaker, that I am talking about
when it comes to servicing transportation needs.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS the Family Violence Intervention Court provided a comprehensive
approach to domestic violence in a court setting that fully understood and
dealt with the complex issues of domestic violence; and
WHEREAS domestic violence continues to be one of the most serious issues
facing our Province today, and the cost of the impact of domestic violence
is great both economically and in human suffering; and
WHEREAS the Family Violence Intervention Court was welcomed and endorsed by
all aspects of the Justice system including the police, the courts, the
prosecutors, defence counsel, Child, Youth and Family Services, as well as
victims, offenders, community agencies and women's groups; and
WHEREAS the recidivism rate for offenders going through the court was 10 per
cent compared to 40 per cent for those who did not; and
WHEREAS the budget for the court was only 0.2 per cent of the entire budget
of the Department of Justice;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the Family Violence
Intervention Court.
As
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I have hundreds of these.
They keep arriving in my office.
People want the court reinstated.
That has been established loudly and clearly.
It
was interesting to hear the Premier today stand up in the House and say, he
said directly: if I think that the court prevented violence against women
and children, I would have opened it right away.
Mr.
Speaker, we know that it does.
We know that it did. The
recidivism rate was 10 per cent rather than 40 per cent.
That meant that it did reduce violence against women and children.
I do not know why this government is not reinstating the court
immediately. First of all, I do
not know why they closed it.
Obviously, it was a mistake.
When
we look at today, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence
against Women, I cannot help but wonder: is this government more interested
in saving face than they are in saving lives?
Maybe that is what is at play here.
I do not know, because it makes no sense whatsoever for this
government (a) to have closed the court; and, (b) not to have reopened it.
They say it was a budgetary consideration.
Then they said it was not serving enough people.
Now no one is getting served.
Mr.
Speaker, it has been almost two years since this court was closed.
How many lives has that affected?
How many lives of women and children who have been victims of
violence have been affected by the closure of this court?
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
A
petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly
sheweth:
WHEREAS there is no cellphone service in the Town of Trout River, which is
an enclave community in Gros Morne National Park; and
WHEREAS visitors to Gros Morne National Park, more than 100,000 annually,
expect to communicate by cellphone when they visit the park; and
WHEREAS cellphone service has become a very important aspect of everyday
living for residents; and
WHEREAS cellphone service is an essential safety tool for visitors and
residents; and
WHEREAS cellphone service is essential for business development;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to partner with the private sector to extend cellphone
coverage throughout Gros Morne National Park, and the enclave community of
Trout River
As
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, maybe the government is not as aware, maybe the entire members of
the House are not as aware of where Gros Morne National Park is and the
major financial contribution that it makes to the Province as a whole and
that it is probably the singular, signature attraction in the Province that
people internationally look to visit, more so than many of our other very
fine attractions.
Mr.
Speaker, imagine if you are coming from New York City, Germany, London,
Toronto, anywhere all over the world where people are accustomed to having
cellphone service. You have been
attracted to Gros Morne National Park by the advertising of all of the
amenities, the nice ads that the Province put on, the view that you can see
from the top of Gros Morne, the boat ride through Western Brook Gulch, the
car ride out through Trout River Gulch, the boat ride up through Trout River
Pond, all of these things that tourists can come and see.
You
come and you expect modern, contemporary amenities.
You come here and you find out that for the most part it really is up
to grade. It really is up to
snuff. There are some very nice
restaurants, world-renowned restaurants in Trout River and Woody Point.
The Writers at Woody Point festival every year, which is only a
handful of kilometres from the Town of Trout River; yet, when you come in to
Gros Morne National Park, the first thing you lose is cellphone service.
Then as you progress from Wiltondale further into the park, the
cellphone service still is not available.
When you come into Bonne Bay there is cellphone service until you get
to Trout River, where there is no cellphone service.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS oral health is intrinsically linked to overall health and health
care is universally covered in our Province; and
WHEREAS Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been forced to wait for a year
or longer for much needed oral surgeries; and
WHEREAS residents with emergency cases and others who need oral surgery must
seek medical attention in other provinces; and
WHEREAS the cost of access to oral surgery outside the Province is
prohibitively expensive for many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador covers only 50 per cent
of travel costs and requires a $400 deductible; and
WHEREAS this financial burden and the lack of adequate oral surgery services
in Newfoundland and Labrador is creating a two-tier system within the health
care system;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that a more adequate level of
access to specialist primary care based oral surgery and oral surgical
procedures is provided in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We
further urge government to review the level of financial assistance
currently provided through the Medical Transportation Assistance Program to
residents who leave the Province for oral surgeries.
As
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, we present a lot of petitions in the House of Assembly.
Sometimes government listens, like they did with the school
transportation review, the full-day Kindergarten petition, and a number of
other petitions that Opposition members have presented in the House of
Assembly.
In
this case, Mr. Speaker, government listened a little bit.
We were happy to see in Budget 2014 rather modest changes – I say to
the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame, who is listening very intently over
there. Rather modest changes
were made to the medical transportation assistance act.
Government, in fact, increased the level of assistance to 75 per cent
of expenses over $3,000; but still, when I did contact a constituent of mine
who is the originator of this petition, that really did not help her
situation.
We
know there are still lots of other people out there who have to go out of
Province. Primarily, they are
going to Halifax, I believe, Mr. Speaker, to have oral surgical procedures
performed and they are paying significant amounts of money out of their own
pocket. It is contrary to the
notion of having a universal health care system, that people have to pay to
that extent.
With
government in its planning stages for the Budget next year, another thing to
make another modest improvement and eventually we will get there.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education, that we move to
Orders of the Day.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is that we
move to Orders of the Day.
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, with leave, I would like to introduce a motion regarding the Public
Accounts Committee that I overlooked a little earlier.
MR. SPEAKER:
Does the minister have
leave?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
Leave.
MR. KING:
Thank you.
On
behalf of the Striking Committee of the House of Assembly, and in accordance
with Standing Order 65(1), I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs, that the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor – Green
Bay South replace the Member for Lake Melville as a member of the Public
Accounts Committee.
MR. SPEAKER:
Shall the motion pass?
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker,
and I thank members opposite for leave.
At
this time I would like to move to Order 2, third reading of a bill, An Act
To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 3, Bill 26.
So moved by me, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs, that the said bill be now read the third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded
that the said bill be now read a third time.
Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend
The Revenue Administration Act No. 3.
(Bill 26)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read the
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on
the Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 3”, read
a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper.
(Bill 26)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At
this time I would like to move to Order 3, second reading of a bill, An Act
To Regulate Child Care Services, Bill 30.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental
Affairs, Bill 30, An Act To Regulate Child Care Services.
Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to bring this bill to the House of Assembly
today.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It
is moved and seconded that Bill 30 be now read a second time.
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Regulate Child Care Services”.
(Bill 30).
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MS SULLIVAN:
Thank you very much.
I am
very pleased to bring Bill 30 to the House of Assembly today, An Act to
Regulate Child Care Services.
The last full review of child care legislation in this Province was more
than fifteen years ago, and I am really happy to introduce a new piece of
legislation today.
The
current Child Care Services Act was proclaimed in 1999.
This new legislation will modernize the current legislation governing
child care services in Newfoundland and Labrador, while ensuring the safety
and protection of our children remains paramount.
Our
government is focused on providing regulated child care services throughout
the Province that are built on three key pillars.
Those pillars are: quality, sufficiency, and affordability.
Those are the building blocks of our 10-Year Child Care Strategy that
we launched in 2013 and which I will outline in a few moments.
I
believe the most recent development in child care in this Province is the
best place to begin when we are talking about new child care legislation.
On September 30, 2014, our Premier announced the creation of a new
department: the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.
Premier Davis recognized that the best education systems integrate
early learning activities and the formal education system.
I was privileged to be asked to lead this new department which is
responsible for the complete continuum of learning from infancy through high
school.
In
this Province, integration of regulated child care services and family
resource centres with education at the governance level to form the new
department will, in turn, enhance service delivery at the community and
grassroots levels through development and implementation of common policies
and procedures.
The
ultimate goal of integration is enhanced service delivery for children and
families that will promote improved outcomes across a variety of indicators.
Focusing on integrated services and enhanced quality early learning
opportunities in a child's formative years, when children's brain
development is most open to learning and growing, will build a stronger
foundation for children's transition to school, for lifelong learning, and
career development, which in turn is vital for a sustainable economic future
for this Province.
Our
government has been recognized and applauded in the media for this move.
Kathy LeGrow, Chair of the Pratt Foundation, a foundation based in
St. John's that advocates for early childhood programming, said, “This is a
critical step to enhancing early childhood education and care (ECE) in our
province”.
She
went on to say, “Integrating early child education into the Department of
Education is significant because it streamlines program planning and
delivery but, more importantly, it legitimizes the early years as being
critical to education and human development.
It affords the sharing of information among educators…”.
It ensures a continuum of learning, and it provides smooth
transitions between each learning stage.
The Pratt Foundation also recognized our commitment to full-day
Kindergarten, citing both as commendable steps.
Through the creation of my new department, our government's commitment to
creating a child care system that provides quality, accessible, and
affordable regulated child care spaces to parents with young children
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador has never been clearer.
In February 2013, our government officially launched the 10-Year
Child Care Strategy, Caring for our Future: Provincial Strategy for Quality,
Sufficient and Affordable Child Care in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Caring for our Future presents a vision for a planned systematic approach
for the growth and enhancement of regulated child care services throughout
the Province from 2012 through to 2022.
The strategy builds on, as I mentioned earlier, three key pillars and
those are: quality, sufficiency, and affordability.
These pillars help to ensure that parents who choose regulated child
care in Newfoundland and Labrador will have access to high-quality,
affordable services.
We
are currently in year three of our strategy and our government has
implemented or continued many initiatives under the strategy such as Child
Care Capacity Initiative, which supports community and not-for-profit groups
to promote space creation in under-serviced areas.
As well, the new early childhood education post-secondary program
standards which allow students to achieve Level I certification after
successful completion of year one of the two-year diploma program, and
revised Early Learning and Child Care Supplement for early childhood
educators working in licensed child care centres based on positions held in
addition to qualifications.
These initiatives, Mr. Speaker, lauded by early childhood educators, coupled
with the outstanding array of existing programs and services from birth,
aimed at supporting child development, supporting and engaging families, and
enhancing the transition to school illustrate our commitment to our children
and our families.
Services and programs include regulated child care.
As of June 20, 2014 we had 7,815 regulated child care spaces
throughout the Province, which is almost a 70 per cent increase since 2003.
From birth to age three, in terms of early childhood learning
initiatives, we have programs such as early literacy programming through
partnership with public libraries; we have parent resource kits through
child health clinics; and if you have been watching TV or listening to the
radio at all, you would have noticed the Power of Play promotional campaign
focusing on the importance of play for children's learning and development.
Mr.
Speaker, we also have the KinderStart program, which provides a transition
to school programs for four-year-olds.
With the provincial government investment of $30.6 million, we will
see the implementation of full-day Kindergarten in September of 2016.
We have family resource centres which government funds and which help
to provide play groups, parenting support, and healthy baby clubs.
We
are by no means done, Mr. Speaker.
We have other upcoming initiatives which we committed to in our
ten-year strategy. They include
– and these will be specific initiatives around which I will give additional
information in the coming weeks as we roll out these two new programs, the
first of which is a voluntary operating grant program which will provide
operational funding to child care centres choosing to become involved.
It will require those centres to meet specific accountability
criteria, including the setting of child care rates at provincial daily
subsidy rates, and a Web-based child care registry which will provide
parents with an effective way to find regulated care and make available
improved data to determine supply and demand of child care spaces.
Quality programming in both centre-based and family child care is
fundamental to an effective system of regulated child care.
The program must be supported through an appropriate legislative
framework, which is why a legislative review is a key component of this
strategy, and why we are here today to introduce Bill 30, An Act to Regulate
Child Care Services.
The
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador regulates child care services
through the Child Care Services Act and Regulations which establishes
health, safety, and program standards.
Provincial government officials are responsible for monitoring and
enforcing compliance with the legislation and regulations.
The act and regulations were reviewed with a focus on ensuring
positive practices are used when providing child care services throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador.
This
new bill is proposed based on extensive public consultation and the review
of academic research and jurisdictional analysis.
The first round of consultations provided the general public, key
stakeholders, and representatives of the child care sector with an
opportunity to share their thoughts and perspectives on the current child
care legislation and regulations, and to discuss changes required to ensure
a strong framework for the healthy growth and development of children in the
child care sector in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Focus groups were held in June 2013 and written submissions and feedback was
encouraged from the general public.
A total of seventeen written submissions were received through this
process. Focus group sessions
were held in St. John's, Corner Brook, Grand Falls-Windsor, and Happy
Valley-Goose Bay. A
cross-section of stakeholders were invited to these sessions representing
owners and operators of small and large child care centres, early childhood
educators working in both centre-based and family-based child care, parents,
and organizations related to the child care sector.
A follow-up focus group was help with stakeholder organizations and
key individuals in October 2013 to provide more discussion time around
issues raised at the public consultations.
Mr.
Speaker, this morning I had the pleasure of participating in a news
conference with the President of AECENL – AECENL is the Association of Early
Childhood Educators of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The president of that organization sat with me at the table.
When asked questions around this particular act and this new piece of
legislation, one of her comments – among many that were exceptionally
positive around this act – was that she was so happy to see that (a)
government had consulted but, more importantly, that government had listened
to what was said through those stakeholder consultations, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN:
Mr. Speaker, we are very
proud to have the support of AECENL as we bring forward this new act here in
the House of Assembly.
Recommended changes were also discussed with other government departments in
an interdepartmental focus group, which included Advanced Education and
Skills, Intergovernmental Affairs, Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, Health
and Community Services, and Education and Early Childhood Development.
A
second round of consultations intended to build on the preliminary round of
targeted consultations occurred in January and February past.
Those consultations specifically encouraged parents to participate.
Focus groups there were held in Corner Brook, Gander, Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, and St. John's, with a primary focus on parents.
We listened to the feedback we received through those extensive
consultation processes.
What
you will see in the key changes here are the culmination of recommendations
that came from our stakeholders, that came from the people who worked with
our children, that came from the parents of those particular children, that
came as well from departments like Health and Community Services, and that
came from jurisdictional scans across this country.
As a result, the new bill has been restructured and modernized to
reflect current knowledge in the child care field, streamline policies and
processes, and to provide flexibility for licensees and transparency.
So,
what I would like to do now is to outline briefly the six changes that we
are proposing in this bill. The
first one has to do with exemptions to licensing.
Exemptions to licensing have been clarified and strengthened by
stronger definitions of what a child care service is and what a child care
service provider is and, of course, what they are not.
The clarity will result in consistent interpretation of the need for
a service to be licensed.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind those at home and those in the
House who are paying attention, these particular changes came to us based on
what our consultations told us, based on what we learned from studying
literature, based on what we have seen happening successfully in other
jurisdictions.
In
the current act, exemptions have been opened to broad interpretation which
resulted in inconsistency for licensing.
The definitions of a child care service and a child care service
provider have been clarified and strengthened in the proposed bill.
In each of these definitions, specific exemptions are included
related to the definition.
Firstly, a child care service means an activity or other arrangement that
provides temporary care or supervision of a child, but it does not include
KinderStart, which is offered by the Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development. It does
not include artistic instruction, tutoring, or sports for children who are
enrolled full-time in school. It
does not include day camps offered during school breaks for children who are
enrolled full-time in school.
A
child care service provider means a person who or an organization that
operates a child care service, but it does not include schools operating
under the Schools Act, 1997. It
does not include hospitals that provide child care services, playrooms, and
school to in-patient children.
It does not include parents and relatives providing child care to a child
who is related to them. It does
not include a nanny hired to provide child care in the child's home.
Unregulated child care remains unchanged at a maximum of four children, with
no more than two children of the four under age two, or if there are three
children under two, they are limited to that number.
They are exempt under regulations.
All other jurisdictions have exemption clauses and the exemptions we
are proposing are similar in scope to other jurisdictions across this
country.
The
second change, Mr. Speaker, is focused on a capacity limit on the licence.
It will remove the current cap set on child care centre licences.
Licences in this Province are currently limited to a maximum of sixty
spaces. This limits the
flexibility of a licensee to determine the scope of their service.
Our change will allow providers more flexibility and reduce
redundancies, while not impacting the safety of children or the quality of
the service they receive.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind those listening, that these
changes have come to us through our stakeholder consultations and through
best practices that we have researched and informed ourselves on.
What is most important to us in all of these changes, and is
particularly important to us in terms of the capacity limit on a licence, is
the quality of service to our children.
Quality of service is determined by a number of factors, otherwise known as
the iron triangle of quality: the three iron sides of the triangle of
quality, iron meaning that we are not moving on these.
We are steadfast in these particular factors.
The three sides of that triangle are staff-child ratio, maximum group
size in a homeroom, and staff qualifications.
There are also requirements for the amount of indoor and outdoor
space per child which ensure quality.
The new act does not change any of those factors.
Our staff-to-child ratio and the maximum group size will remain the
same, and the amount of indoor and outdoor space per child will be
unchanged.
As
well as committed to in the Caring For Our Future strategy, a new trainee
certification level for child care staff will be introduced, replacing the
current entry level certification.
Our requirements in these areas are within recommended guidelines in
research and best practice, including the guidelines recommended by the
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
However, the current capacity limit impacts the ability of licensees
to determine the scope of their services.
Let
me perhaps illustrate this best by giving a couple of examples.
If you have a building with five rooms of sufficient size to
accommodate sixteen preschool-aged children, you would need to be licensed
for eighteen spaces. However,
under the current act this is not possible.
A
second example. If a licensee
wished to offer a child care service for children from birth through to age
thirteen with one homeroom for each age group, then you would require five
homerooms. They would need
eighty-six spaces. That would be
six infants, ten toddlers, sixteen pre-schoolers, twenty-four kinder care,
and thirty after school. Again,
this is not possible in the current act.
There are currently child care owners in the Province with more than sixty
children in one building, through holding more than one licence in that same
building. For example, the
Campus Childcare at MUN has four licences for 191 spaces.
Little People's Workshop on Mundy Pond Road has three licences for
102 spaces. Kidcorp on Ricketts
Road has two licences for 113 spaces.
This
situation imposes redundancies on the service providers, and red tape such
as more than one application and renewal process being required,
difficulties transitioning children from one age group to another, where the
next age group is under a different licence and often located in a different
place, Mr. Speaker. That is one
of the pieces that we heard loudly from our parent groups in particular.
If
you have two children and you are transitioning them, or even if you have
one child and you are transitioning from one age group to another, and you
actually have to take them out of one building and bring them to somewhere
else in your town or city, that is often very disruptive to the child and
certainly to the parent, Mr. Speaker.
If we can manage to have a number of different homerooms co-located
in one building, while still ensuring quality through those child-staff
ratios, through the quality and the qualifications of the early childhood
educators, and through the space requirements being met, then everyone is
better served.
Most
provincial and territorial jurisdictions in Canada do not limit the capacity
of a licence. Removing the
capacity limit on a licence will not impact – and I am going to say it
again, it will not impact the quality of care that the child receives.
In fact, the child and parent may not even notice the change, but
licensees will get more flexibility as they provide care.
The
third change in this act, Mr. Speaker, has to do with an appeal process.
It will see a process for licensing decisions being defined.
The current Child Care Services Act does not have a defined appeal
process. Adding an appeal
process provides transparency.
Currently, there is no defined appeal process for a licensing decision, such
as refusal to issue or renew a licence, or a decision to issue a violation
order. Defining an appeal
process gives transparency to the process and it outlines obligations and
expectations for both parties.
The
proposed appeal process is similar to other provincial legislation.
Currently, eight of the provinces and territories describe an appeal
process in their child care legislation, including New Brunswick and Prince
Edward Island.
In
the current act, the provincial director must be appointed by the Lieutenant
Governor in Council. Our fourth
key change in the new act allows the minister to appoint the provincial
director. Public service
competition would still apply, as the appointee would be a provincial
government employee. This change
will not impact service delivery and will bring this legislation in line
with other provincial legislation which speaks to the appointment of a
provincial director.
Change number five will improve the transparency and accountability of the
inspection process. The new act
requires that a manager is not to be appointed as an inspector.
This safeguards the inspection process by separating the inspection
from the person receiving the inspection report and making decisions based
on those inspections. This
change, I am sure all my hon. colleagues will agree, just makes good sense
and it ensures accountability which is paramount when dealing with our
children.
Finally, the sixth change in this new act concerns the statutory review
bringing this act in line with most recent provincial legislation.
A review of the legislation is required every five years.
This review must include public consultation which supports
transparency.
You
will recall that when I started speaking, Mr. Speaker, I said this was the
first time in fifteen years that we reviewed the act.
So bringing in the statutory review to ensure a review every five
years has been applauded and will be welcomed by all groups and all
stakeholders.
This
act introduces six key changes that will help modernize our legislation and
bring it in line with best practices throughout the country with a clear
focus on providing safe quality care to our children.
Our government recognizes the importance of providing that care,
which supports the healthy growth and development of children and their
families.
Research over the past ten years has underscored the importance of the early
years in terms of brain development and the lasting effects that early
experiences have on children's later success.
Quality early learning and child care is provided by qualified staff
in properly established environments, including regulated child care centres
and family child care homes which promote early learning using
well-researched, positive practices.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will
take my seat now and I look forward to a very healthy debate here this
afternoon on this legislation.
Through the course of the debate, I am sure I will be asked to answer
several questions from members on the other side of the House.
I will certainly be happy to do that.
Again, in terms of this legislation, our overall goal is to
modernize, to strengthen, and to clarify this current legislation, Mr.
Speaker.
Thank you very much for the time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn):
The hon. the
Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
is a pleasure for me to get up and speak to Bill 30, An Act to Regulate
Child Care Services. We have had
quite a lot of discussion and debate about the provision of early learning
and child care in Newfoundland and Labrador and how we relate to other
jurisdictions and what is happening on the international scene.
We have had quite a lot of discussion and debate about that since I
first was elected in 2011.
It
is good to have an opportunity to address some of the issues, to respond to
some of the things the minister has said, and to discuss some of the things
that are in the legislation and then some of the things that we would have
liked to have seen in the legislation – and maybe, if it not too late, we
could see some of those things changed even.
When
the minister stood up, initially she spoke about the recent report that was
issued by the Pratt Foundation.
The Jimmy Pratt Foundation is a local group that was founded to bring issues
associated with early learning and child care to the fore, and to make sure
that early learning and child care was an issue for the current government
but also to ensure that it is going to be an issue in the next election
campaign, which we all know is more or less around the corner.
The
Pratt Foundation really started to gather steam around this time in 2011.
That is when the Atkinson Foundation, based out of Toronto, issued
the report that the minister referenced and we have discussed a number of
times. That report has a
checklist and they issued a revised checklist this year, which the minister
talked about because she was talking about how the Pratt Foundation
complimented government on improving government standing.
Now,
there was an improved standing in that, but it is not really all what we are
led to believe because in the 2011 report, the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador received a 1.5 out of – I am not sure what it was –
MS SULLIVAN:
Fifteen.
MR. KIRBY:
I think it is more than
fifteen. Yes, it is certainly
more than fifteen, I say to the minister.
I think it is actually –
MS SULLIVAN:
Fifteen.
MR. KIRBY:
– nineteen, I say to the
minister because Quebec would have had – oh, it is fifteen.
I apologize for that; you are right.
The minister is right, Mr. Speaker.
I apologize for that. The
minister is absolutely right; it is fifteen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
In any case, I draw the
minister's attention to two areas in the ranking in the metric because in
2011 we received overall 1.5 out of fifteen.
This year, three years later, we received six out of fifteen.
We still have a total of zero in the
area of funding. We still have a
total of zero in the area of access.
As
the minister knows, within the ranking there are three areas under funding.
One is at least two-thirds of child care funding goes to program
operations. So, we have a zero
again this year, as we did in 2011.
The next one is that there is a mandated salary and fee scale.
That one we got a zero on again this year.
The third one is at least 3 per cent of the budget is devoted to
early childhood education and we have a zero on that.
So, we still have a zero out of three in the area of funding.
The
other one in access – of course, that is the affordability angle.
The other part we always hear people talk about is accessibility.
It is whether you can afford child care or not and whether you can
access it or not. In the area of
access, one was that full-day Kindergarten is offered.
We have a zero in that, but we do know, as the minister said;
government has announced that in 2016 they are going to introduce full-day
kindergarten.
As
we have already discussed, that may very well involve classes in temporary
portable classrooms and a variety of other learning spaces and facilities
and school areas that are not currently designated for learning, so gyms,
cafeterias, art rooms, science labs, and music rooms.
I say to the minister, I have heard from a number of different
teachers and administrators in schools across the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador who have had officials in from the Newfoundland and Labrador
English School District who are sizing up and saying well, that music room,
that is a good spot to put two classes of Kindergartens; that cafeteria,
that is a good spot to put three classes of Kindergartens; and that learning
resources centre or that school library is a good spot to put a number of
classes. So that is going on.
MR. LANE:
They must have adopted
the Mount Pearl model.
MR. KIRBY:
My colleague, the Member
for Mount Pearl South, he calls that the Mount Pearl model, where you take
spaces and classes in learning spaces in schools and turn them into
something other than what they were initially designed for.
In any case, the next time this is done, three years from now, please
God, we are actually going to see a one in there and not a zero.
There are two other areas, Mr. Speaker, and I will not belabour this, but 50
per cent – under access – of two to four-year-olds regularly attend an ECE
program. So we do not have that
right now, and that is a structured learning program.
We have a zero in that this year, and
then the final one under here in funding is conditional on including
children with special needs.
This is really important, so remember that I said that.
I am going to come back to that later on, because it is extremely
important as it relates to what the minister was talking about, their
commitment to a ten-year child care program.
So, I am going to come back to that.
In
the area of funding and in the area of access, whether you can afford child
care and whether you can regularly access child care, those areas in the
report that was done this year, we still got a zero – a zero out of three,
and a zero out of three. We are
still at a zero, but full-day Kindergarten is going to change that, we hope.
Now,
there are a number of other areas, but I do not want to use up any more of
my time on that because I think I have said enough about that.
That is the early year's three report and the update to that that
came this year.
Again, if I have not said it, I just want to say congratulations and thank
you to Kathy LeGrow and Dr. David Philpott with the Jimmy Pratt Foundation
because they have been doing a phenomenal job.
In the last year, I have gone to, I believe, four different events
where they have had a keynote speaker from somewhere else in Canada or
somewhere else in the world to come in and talk about different aspects of
early learning.
I
know the minister's office has provided great help, and the Minister of
Child, Youth and Family Services office has been a great help in ensuring
that all sorts of people across the broad spectrum of child care and early
learning, people in our communities are able to access those meetings and
events, and keynote speakers, and to learn from national and international
experts on this stuff. It is
extremely important.
When
the minister said, I believe it was last week, or I think it was the day we
were talking about: Oops, we fooled up calling the two by-elections act.
I do not think it was called that, but it was the amendment to.
The minister said during that week, in any case, that this government
did have an aggressive legislative agenda and part of this government's
aggressive agenda was to introduce this particular act.
I
was thinking to myself that ideally this piece of legislation would do a
variety of different things, as it does in other provinces in Canada.
It would foster the learning, development, health, and well-being of
children and enhance their safety.
It would make sure we have an enriched learning environment where
children can develop and learn, that their health and well-being is looked
out for and they are provided with a safe environment for that to happen so
we do not have to worry about accidents and these sorts of things.
That it would also provide a framework for the regulation of child
care. In part, this does do that
to some extent, but there is still a lot that is in regulation and not
necessarily in the legislation.
It
should also provide a framework for the operation of early learning and
child care programs and services, a framework for operating child care
centres, home-based child care, and delivering those services to our kids;
also, to establish a system of licensing and compliance for early learning
and child care programs and services, a process for licensing them; also,
for ensuring the rules that go along with licensing are adhered to and
complied with, and that we have people who carry out that function, much in
the same way Occupational Health and Safety is achieved through officers who
deal with compliance and so on, which I will speak to a little later on.
It
should also set out, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker – and based on
what we have heard from the minister, I cannot see how she would disagree.
It should set out really the basic requirements for funding and for
resourcing of early learning and child care programs and services.
Also, it should help to guide parents and guardians of children to
enable them to evaluate early learning and care programs, and to make
choices about which programs are appropriate for them, which work best for
them, which provide the best learning environment, which foster development,
which provide for health and well-being of their children, and provide a
safe learning environment for their children to develop.
They
should also reflect our increased understanding of child development.
As the Atkinson Foundation has shown, as the Jimmy Pratt Foundation
has shown in all those reports, all those talks, keynote speakers and events
we have all attended over the past year, we know that our understanding of
child development has really changed significantly over the past decade.
It
should also improve government's ability to evaluate the effectiveness of
early learning and child care programs so we can really see all those
investments that the minister talked about, and the ones that she has
promised, not just here in the House of Assembly today, but has been
promised by her predecessor.
Also, the things she addressed in her press conference this morning where
she announced these amendments to the Child Care Services Act.
This
piece of legislation ideally should also detail the supports and the help
that would co-ordinate planning and policy development as it relates to
early learning and child care programs and services.
That is really an overview of what I think we should be able to
achieve.
If
you look, if you have a cursory examination of the other legislation,
whether that is in British Columbia, or in Alberta, or in Ontario, or in – I
know the Member for Exploits is listening intently.
I say to the Member for Exploits, I will not list all the provinces
but you know what I am saying.
It is more or less best practices as we have heard here in the House of
Assembly on many different occasions.
We certainly do not need to reinvent the wheel.
Many
provinces are ahead of us and we look to those reports, the Early Years 3
and the update that was provided this year.
Last year we were last; this year we are second to last.
We know there are a lot of provinces in Canada that have a lot of
legislation and regulations in this area that we can learn from.
To
get more into the bill, Mr. Speaker – and I am just noting my time is
ticking away here – really, what is going on here, rather than simply amend
this act, we were told at the briefing that the minister's staff kindly
provided to us the other day, we were told that rather than amending the
current act, Legislative Counsel recommended that the best thing to do would
be to just repeal the existing act and replace it with the one we have
before us in the form of Bill 30.
The
minister said it has been fifteen years since that previous piece of
legislation was introduced. So
this is the first major overhaul.
There have been a series of amendments that have been made over time,
over the course of that fifteen years because if there were not, the first
thing you would say, Mr. Speaker, is well, what has the government been
doing in the eleven or so years they have been in power?
They have done a few minor things, as the minister will readily
admit. They have not entirely
ignored the legislation, but this is really meant to replace what was there
before.
As
you can imagine, when you are amending legislation in a piecemeal manner
over a decade, really you end up with hodgepodge changes, languages are not
consistent, and so on.
Legislative Counsel is able to provide guidance in how to craft a bill and
make sure the legislation reads consistently and so on and all the
definitions are adhered to, there is no redundancy or duplication, which
really complicates people's understanding of the legislation.
Prior to this, child care centres and family regulated child care homes were
regulated and were compelled to operate in accordance with the Child Care
Services Regulations 2005 and within the confines of the Child Care Services
Act. I will not go into detail
on that because it is a relatively comprehensive piece of legislation
itself. The last amendment that
was made to this was actually in 2005, so it has been almost ten years since
we have seen any substantive changes to this.
In
February, 2013, as the minister pointed out, this government introduced a
10-Year Child Care Strategy they called Caring For Our Future, a provincial
strategy for quality, sufficient, and affordable child care in Newfoundland
and Labrador. I have often
remarked that is in some ways like a grandchild care plan because so many
children will age out of the system and will not qualify for what this
government intends to have in place after the full ten years is through.
For
example, my son was born in May of 2011; he is three and a half now.
You imagine that you add another nine years on top of that; by the
time we get to the end of the road on this he will not qualify for many of
the things that the minister has indicated.
The
review of the act, we understand, was done in consultation with experts in
the field. I think the minister
said they consulted the academic research.
I did not hear the minister say whether or not they had actually gone
to the Pratt Foundation and asked them to review the legislation.
I am not certain that the experts we have at Memorial University of
Newfoundland and also those who are experts in the area of early childhood
education at the College of the North Atlantic – because we do have quite a
good child care facility here in the city that is affiliated with the
College of the North Atlantic and also one at a Corner Brook campus of the
College of the North Atlantic.
We
have significant programs, expertise, human resources, and people with the
know-how in the area of early learning and care that provide those programs
and services and also are training the next generation of early childhood
educators. I was not entirely
certain of whether all of those folks had been consulted, although there was
some indication that there were a number of rounds of consultations that had
been carried out so far.
I do
understand, although the minister might want to clarify this at some point
as well, that the old act, the old piece of legislation, that would be the
Child Care Services Act, is going to remain in force until the new piece of
legislation comes fully into force.
One
of the things I think that has been done – again, as I said yesterday and a
number of other days, I am certainly the first one to compliment government
and to point out when things are done right.
As the Premier said in Question Period today and the minister also
said when she was up giving her speech, one of the things the government has
done quite recently is moved child care in with early learning in the
Department of Education to form the new Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development of which the minister is responsible and, of course,
that is an extremely important move.
That
is something the Atkinson Foundation, the Jimmy Pratt Foundation, experts in
early learning and care in Newfoundland and Labrador and all across the
country have been calling for for some time.
Now, it was not exactly the hardest thing in the world to do; it was
probably one of the easiest things you could have done in that metrics.
It
was interesting, one day I was preparing to come down to ask the minister a
question in Question Period and I noted that the child care business of
government, if you will, I believe is still under the Minister of Child,
Youth and Family Services Web site.
Then I panicked. I
actually had to call the Minister of Education and Early Childhood
Development's department and confirm that the child care stuff is still
under the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services Web site and that I
was not wrong. I was going to
suggest to the Member for St. Barbe, who is the critic for Child, Youth and
Family Services, that he had his facts wrong and he was going to ask that
question in Question Period, but it did not turn out that way in any case.
I digress frequently, Mr. Speaker.
That
was a good move. We all
applauded that. We all asked for
that. As I said in debate
before, I do not think anybody would disagree with that.
In
June 2013, there were a number of focus groups held by government on a
regional basis. There was a
discussion guide put on the Web site by government about this, to ask people
what they thought. That is an
important public engagement process that was undertaken.
There were additional regional roundtables or focus groups held as
well. There was also an attempt
made to reach out to parents, which is extremely important.
One
day, I went down to take my own child to child care – I drop my son off
every morning – and I was invited to participate in one of those roundtables
myself. I did not, but I did
have the opportunity and I was pleased to see that everybody at my son's
child care centre was invited to participate in that because it is really
important. Parents have things
that they want to raise, all sorts of issues.
I
had a constituent approach me recently for clarification around a number of
different issues she is facing with a home-based child care centre in my
district, located in Kenmount Terrace.
That is a subdivision off Kenmount Road.
We
had to go to the minister's office to try to get clarification on some of
those issues; they range from ratios to qualifications and substitutes and
all those sort of things that will happen when we are dealing with early
childhood educators. Because in
a lot of instances early childhood educators are women – it is a
female-dominated field – a lot of people having their own children
themselves and need to take time away from providing child care and have a
substitute come in then when those sorts of things happen.
So, it is extremely complicated and that is why we need solid
legislation and decent, comprehensive legislation to cover a lot of these
things.
We
are told that the legislation we have before us today in the form of Bill 30
is intended to modernize and strengthen the legislation.
It is also intended to streamline policies and processes.
The
minister talked about there being a limitation previously on a licence.
So, previously a licence would cover sixty children.
That did not mean the child care centre was limited to sixty children
because when they met that, they would merely issue another licence.
In some cases, one child care would have to apply for multiple
licences. I am not really sure,
but that sounds like multiple fees to me.
I am not sure if those were waived or what happened, but it just
creates more red tape, more bureaucracy, and makes it more difficult for
child care operators to do the important work they have to do.
As I alluded to earlier, there is so much going on in early learning
and care that we do not need those sorts of obstacles.
That
is a good thing to eliminate that and to ensure that these things are dealt
with differently. It was
interesting when I spoke to the media about this, this morning, after the
minister's press conference.
They asked if this would mean that we sort of would have these monstrosities
of child care centres with hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of students
and so on. I have not heard
about anyone planning that and I am not sure that would be manageable in any
case, but that was one of the concerns that was raised there.
I do not really see the situation with this legislation being a whole
lot different than what was in place previously and I really do not see
those concerns.
We
do hear occasionally concerns about international, multinational companies
that provide child care encroaching onto the Canadian scene – Australia, in
particular, but I have not heard a whole lot about that in recent times.
The
new piece of legislation is also intended to improve transparency in the
area of child care services – and I just want to make sure I have not lost
my bill here – when it comes to agencies, licensing, and so on, and also to
improve flexibility for providers and those who provide early learning,
child care programs, and services.
There are a number of new changes that have been included.
Again, as I suggested earlier, if this is representative of the heavy
legislative agenda that government has this fall, then the House of Assembly
is probably not going to have lights on for a whole lot longer.
There is not a whole lot really to these changes.
They are rather modest I would say.
One
of these changes is the proposed exemption to licensing.
The department wants to clarify, as I suggested, the style and
wording throughout the act and make sure there is no ambiguity in the
legislation. A lot of what is in
here, just going and looking at some of the other provinces, has been taken
from other jurisdictions, from other Canadian provinces or territories.
Those jurisdictions have clauses that are similar to the ones that
are proposed here. It is
intended also to provide some clarity for the public and for groups that are
seeking exemptions. Those are
exemptions for recreational programs and for children who are full-time
school-aged students.
The
act speaks primarily to child care services and providers.
It does not refer to those who are not licensed now like daycare
camps and KinderStart programs.
It is not for tutoring or sports for kids who are in school full time.
There are a number of programs children participate in that are
sports oriented and activity oriented that you might enrol your child in and
they can take part in on a Saturday or a Sunday.
Even if they are not school-aged children, my understanding is that
this legislation also would not apply to those activity programs that
children would participate in at the cost of parents.
Unregulated child care is not being changed.
There is no impact on unregulated child care.
Anything that exists in the way of unregulated child care is staying
the same. There is nothing here
that is going to impact that.
The
second area that the legislation proposes to change is this whole issue of
capacity. I will not go into
that in significant detail, because I have also sort of addressed it.
The current act does not allow for a whole lot of flexibility for
licensing in determining the scope of the services of child care providers.
For example, if they wanted to care for infants and have different
mixes of children in their care in their centres and so on, the provision of
child care, as members well know, at least when it comes to early childhood
educators, providers of child care, is based on ratio.
There is a certain number of ECEs who have to be present for a child from
such and such an age to such and such an age.
That will be different based on how old the children are.
That can create a quandary.
It can create confusion if that is not explicitly laid out, if the
legislation is not sufficiently flexible to accommodate different sorts.
What
we want to do is not to overly restrict the child care environment.
We want to ensure that we have a variety of different child care
providers, operators, and different programs so parents will have a lot of
different programs to choose from.
Hopefully they can afford them, because as I said earlier, we have a
long ways to go when it comes to funding.
It
was noted in the briefing that was provided by the Department of Education
and Early Childhood Development that there are a number of licensees who
have had one building but hold more than one licence.
As the minister referenced, the child care centre over on Mundy Pond
Road had, I believe it was, three licences.
None
of these factors are recommended to change.
Group size, the space per child, homeroom group sizes, the
qualifications of early childhood educators, the extent and needed space for
indoor and outdoor spaces – none of that, we are told, is going to be
impacted adversely or is going to be changed by this legislation.
We are not improving that in any way, so I guess what we have at the
moment is deemed to be sufficient
when it comes to indoor
and outdoor recreation space. It
is also important to note that when the staff in the department looked at
all of this, it was found that most jurisdictions do not have a capacity
assigned to particular licences so, again, this is best practices as per
what is going on in other Canadian provinces and territories.
There is also a new appeals process that is included in here.
This component of the act that will be enforced will ensure that
there is an appeal process to enable any licensee to appeal the revoking of
a licence that they hold, the denial of a licence that they hold, or a
suspension of a licence that they hold to provide child care programs.
There are parameters and there are responsibilities, if you will, on both
sides of the coin. That will be
ensured through the appeal process and through the licensing process.
We understand as well that is also consistent and mirrored by
comparable legislation that we find in other provinces and territories in
Canada.
The
next change the minister discussed will ensure for smoother running of this
area of government's business.
This deals with the appointment of the provincial director.
This must be an artifact of days gone by, I would suggest, Mr.
Speaker. The Lieutenant Governor
in Council currently appoints the provincial director.
That will no longer be the case now.
In the new act, the minister will be the person who appoints the
provincial director to that role.
It just streamlines the process a bit more.
We understand that is also consistent with other legislation in other
provinces and territories.
The
appointment of inspectors; that is another change in the act we will see,
assuming we pass Bill 30. That
is a change, but it is also a rather minor change, and not really any
significant ground being broken there.
Child care facilities inspections are, as I understand, conducted
once a month. Sometimes the
visit is announced and other times the visit is unannounced.
If
we want to provide for all those things I talked about upfront – a decent
learning environment where we can have development and assurances of health
and well-being, and safety and security for children – then the whole
process of inspection, having inspectors show up either for announced
visits, for example, a tour of the facility that is planned, or showing up
unannounced to do a spot check to ensure that all the regulations are being
held to, are being followed, that is another useful thing to do.
The
previous legislation did not state that the manager is not an inspector.
Now it is going to state that the inspector, the person who does the
inspecting, is a different person altogether.
That is consistent with a lot of the things that are going on in
other jurisdictions across Canada.
There is no requirement, interestingly enough, in this act for a statutory
review. For people following
along at home, that statutory review is a review of the legislation that we
are going to be passing that is required as a result of a clause in the
particular piece of legislation.
If I go to, normally at the back – is it just my luck that it is not at the
back? Either way, there is a
requirement for a statutory review.
There is no requirement in the current act for a statutory review.
As I was saying, the last amendment was made in 2005.
This one will have a statutory review clause.
It is important, if we are going to have a statutory review of this
in five years that we actually do something with it.
The
workers' compensation act has a statutory review clause, as I understand.
There was a statutory review that was carried out for that.
After the statutory review, government produced a series of
recommendations and none of that has been followed up on.
You get all sorts of questions about the workers' compensation system
and all that, and we have had a statutory review in the last year, but
unfortunately the things that were recommended as a result of it have not
been followed through on. We
want to make sure if we have a statutory review of this piece of legislation
that it is actually followed through on.
I do
not know. The other thing about
it is that things happen rather quickly in the area of early learning and
child care. As I pointed out
before, there have been massive changes when it comes to our understanding
of early child development in recent years.
So maybe it would make sense to have a statutory review that is not
five years; maybe have it every three years.
Do it more frequently so we can keep up with the times, because as we
know it has been a significant period of time, almost ten years, since we
have had any sort of amendment to this as well.
There are also some important questions around here about how this
legislation relates to the Province's 10-Year Child Care Strategy.
There were a number of different promises made that is part of the
strategy. The minister outlined
some of it. I have a letter here
on my desk from the previous minister saying the registry, the minister
referenced this part of their plan, that this registry – I just want to try
and locate it here, because one of the problems as it relates to
accessibility is actually being able to know where spaces are.
In
Budget 2013, there was $20,000 that was allocated to develop and maintain a
centralized child care registry that would assist in determining and
addressing the ongoing and future need for child care throughout the
Province.
I
have a letter from the Minister of Education dated June 2014 that says the
department's centralized child care registry is in the final stages of
development and in partnership with the Office of the Chief Information
Officer. I believe that comes under
the Minister of Health's portfolio.
It is anticipated that the registry will be launched this summer;
that is last summer now.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What?
MR. KIRBY:
Yes.
Well, we are almost into December now.
We are well out of the summer.
Anybody who is over working on the by-election in Humber East, I was
over there –
MR. SPEAKER:
I want to remind the hon.
member we are discussing child care.
MR. KIRBY:
Yes.
We know it is getting colder so it is not summer anymore, Mr.
Speaker. That is one thing, and
I know the minister said in her press conference that it was going to be
coming before Christmas.
Hopefully, we do not have to wait until Santa comes to see the registry.
Now,
there is another –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Santa already came.
MR. KIRBY:
Santa already came.
I think the member is wrong about that.
The minister is quite mistaken.
There is another important aspect of this 10-Year Child Care Strategy that
the minister actually did not even mention this morning, and that is the
review of the inclusion support program.
We have the inclusion support program to ensure that children with
special education needs are able to access early learning and care.
If I
go back to the Atkinson Foundation Report that the minister referenced, one
of the metrics in here, as I said earlier, around access, says that you
score a point if funding is conditional on including children with special
education needs. Well, that is
not accomplished through this piece of legislation, nor has the minister
mentioned when we are going to see the results of the review of the
inclusion support program.
I
have heard all sorts of complaints from operators and providers of early
learning and care about accessing funding through the inclusion supports
program. It says here in the
letter from the minister dated June 12, 2014 that our review of the
inclusion supports program is in progress and will be completed this year.
So that is sort of after Santa Claus, but very shortly after.
We need to see this before the end of the year.
It is only a couple of more weeks that we will be in the House of
Assembly. It is a vital piece of
the ten-year plan, and it is a vital piece of the provision of child care in
Canada and in the Province.
There is one final thing I wanted to mention as well, as the minister did
not raise this. I just want to
make sure we put it on here, because when the Atkinson Foundation released
that report recently, they talked a lot about accountability.
Now, this legislation is supposed to improve transparency, and
include accountability in some ways when it comes to licensing and
inspections and those sorts of things, but we need to have more
accountability for money spent.
We
cannot continue just to talk about, as the minister did, these investments,
and this many millions of dollars and so on, without really having some sort
of publicly transparent reporting in the Province.
We need to make sure there is transparent reporting to the public for
all of the investments and all of the results of our investments in early
learning and child care programs.
This
could be in this bill. This
could really be in this bill, or an aspect of that could be in this bill,
whereby progress is monitored.
Any progress we make from investments in early learning and care are
monitored and then provided transparently to the public through an annual
reporting process. It is an
essential component of any program.
This legislation deals with probably one of the most important
programs that government offers.
When
I spoke in Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne yesterday, I spoke
at length. I am not going to go
back over all those things again, but I believe I spoke for twenty minutes.
I say to the Minister for Child, Youth and Family Services, mostly I
spoke about the importance of the provision of early learning and care and
all of the benefits that we accrue as a society, as a Province, whether it
is social or economic benefits that come from investments in early learning
and care.
We
have to make sure it is monitored and there is regular reporting as a
result. The decisions regarding
everything from administration, the very things that are dealt with in this
piece of legislation, all of those things relates to monitoring, compliance,
licensing, inspections, all of those decisions that relate to those
particular aspects of administration, everything from that to what the
minister spoke about in terms of resource allocation, all those things from
administration to resource allocation, right to goal achievement.
We
are passing this legislation for a reason.
Government has a 10-Year Child Care Strategy for a reason.
At the end of the road, where is it we want to be?
Over the course of the ten years, there should be annual monitoring
to make sure that we are getting the outputs that government intended when
this was conceived of in the beginning.
Information can come from multiple sources of data.
It is unfortunate that really is not part of the legislation or any
of the enforcement or regulation as it relates to child care services
because there are all sorts of proven areas, proven data, that can be pooled
together to better identify what children's needs are, whether they are
being met or to what extent they are being met.
One
of these is the Early Development Instrument, which is something people
would know a lot about in the child care industry.
It is a standardized population-level research tool that provides a
snapshot, a snapshot in time of overall student performance.
It supports the identification of at-risk children.
Remember yesterday I was talking about those children who are at the
margins, most at risk, in the most challenging circumstances, low
socioeconomic status, difficult family situations, et cetera; it supports
those children. It looks at
outcomes in one or more domains.
It looks at their physical health.
It looks at their well-being in terms of physical health.
It looks at language development.
We
have learned much over the years now about the language acquisition that
goes on in early childhood development and also in the cognitive domain,
cognitive development. We know a
lot more about that and EDI would access that and we would be able to stack
that data up year after year, in the first year of your plan, the second
year of your plan, all the way up to the ten-year plan.
You would see at the end whether or not you are making gains.
I
think you probably would be. I
think we would. I think we would
see a return, but the thing is we are missing out on an opportunity.
I say to the members opposite, I say to the government, I say to the
minister: you are missing out on an opportunity to show this because you
could easily do this. You could
bring it in with this piece of legislation, with revised regulations and you
would get a one in your chart here, you would get a one in the Atkinson
Foundation report. That would be
good. It would improve our
standing. You would move up
probably maybe to fourth place in Canada next year and we could see the
result of our investments.
All
this data is really needed to contextualize all the programming that we are
offering and to make sure we have the right resources that we need, to make
sure the qualifications that we are requiring of early childhood educators,
make sure all of those licensing requirements we are including here, all of
the things that are in the associated regulations are going the distance
that we need it to go to achieve the outcomes that we want to see from
millions and millions of dollars of public investment.
We want to make sure those meet local needs because there are
differences in local needs across the Province.
They are not that different but they are different.
We
have much more need for larger centres here on the Northeast Avalon than we
do, say, on the North Coast of Labrador.
The needs are different so the nature of the centres will be
different.
There are a variety of things that can be done in terms of accountability.
You could also, in addition to this particular data – and I have a
lot more here I could say about that, but I will leave that there.
You could use social economic data, income data, family education
data, levels of parental educational obtainment, and data around gender.
There is a vast amount of data that you can get.
You can harvest from just looking at people's postal codes because
all of that information is kept by Statistics Canada; you can go back and
judge just from which neighbourhoods children come from, the extent to which
they are achieving or not, and compare their outcomes to others, all those
sorts of demographic data, and then you can take all of that information and
compare it to all of the program data.
What
are different child care centres doing across Newfoundland and Labrador?
We have heard anecdotally that the quality of child care in some
centres is superior to others, but we only know that anecdotally in a lot of
instances. For example, we know
– and I think it is okay to say it here – that the quality of the child care
provided at the Confederation Building child care centre is one of the best
in the Province. We know that.
Why
do we know that? It is a very
good question because we know it is the case.
We hear it so much. There
is a long, lengthy wait-list to get in there, but that is probably one of
the few metrics we really have to judge the quality.
I think that is a poor judge of quality when we have all these other
sources of data that we could access to judge inputs into child care.
To
go on to some of the more technical aspects of the bill, Mr. Speaker, if I
could just for a little bit longer.
I know I am running out of time very quickly here.
MR. JOYCE:
They will give you leave.
MR. KIRBY:
Maybe I will get leave,
the Member for Bay of Islands says.
One
of the things that was raised – I will start with the definition section.
Maybe we can speed things up so I can raise these now.
One of the things is the definition.
If
you look here in the legislation, we have a variety of different definitions
around a parent and guardian and so on.
I guess really the question is whether or not those definitions are
harmonized across the legislation that government has in force now as it
relates to children, definitions of parent, guardian, foster parent, and so
on and so forth. If this has not
been compared to the other legislation, those sorts of confusions will
continue to exist.
Another question really boils down to the appeals process that the minister
was talking about. This would
certainly be a positive aspect of the legislation, a positive change.
There are a number of questions that arise.
For example, will the act include details of how this appeals process
will work? There are not a whole
lot of details here. People will
be interested to know what sorts of time frames are involved.
The
legislation talks about suspensions, but it does not give a whole lot of
detail with respect to time limits to make the decision.
It says in Clause 25.(1) “A licensee who receives a violation order
may request a review of the violation order.”
It goes on to say that it shall be in writing and it shall be made to
the minister within thirty days from the date the licensee receives the
violation order. So, that is
fairly straightforward.
Then
it says, “A review shall be performed within 60 days of the receipt of the
written request and a written decision including reasons shall be sent by
regular mail to the person who requested the review within 5 business days
of being decided.” Now, what is
the length of time? It is not
entirely clear then that they have to decide.
MS SULLIVAN:
(Inaudible) sixty days.
MR. KIRBY:
They have the maximum
time, so maybe it should say that.
I raise that because again as we said earlier about the workers'
compensation legislation there are a number of days laid out in that too.
That was in the news recently about the number of days that the
workers' compensation review division has to make decisions about appeals
and that can go on for far, far more time.
So even when it is written in the legislation as it relates to
workers' compensation, it goes on anyways.
People can be hung on and on and on, waiting and waiting and waiting for an
appeal. There was one appeals
commissioner had nineteen or something racked up and never ever made a
decision. They made that person
Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker.
I
think there are a lot of questions around timing in this because you can put
it in there. I think if it is
not explicit enough, if we do not have assurances that it is going to be
adhered to, it is not worth the paper it is written on.
I think that is extremely important to point out as well.
MR. SPEAKER (Cross):
Order, please!
I
would like to remind the member to bring it back.
MR. KIRBY:
I will not go on a whole
lot longer here. I just had a
few other things I wanted to highlight.
When it comes to the number of spaces – and again, the registry that
the minister has promised on a number of occasions and her predecessor
minister, in fact, wrote that in a letter to me earlier the year.
Actually it was not to me, it was for the Member for Burgeo – La
Poile; but the registry would really make clear, make much more transparent.
If really the agenda here is to make this process more transparent,
getting this registry done would go a far distance to achieving that.
We
know that as of June of this year there were 7,800 regulated child care
spaces in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we know that the shortage is acute.
How do we know that?
Because when you were scored, earlier last month, you got a zero in access.
So there is an acute shortage of child care spaces, regulated child
care spaces, in the Province.
The
government has claimed on occasion that it has increased the number of
regulated spaces by 70 per cent, but who really is to say because we do not
have the data to provide that.
You do not have a monitoring compliance system that backs any of that up.
If you did, then we could say yes, we could look at it, we could read
it, you would put it out every year.
We would say okay, absolutely you do.
We would have the registry.
We would have it up online.
We would be able to see some of that data stack up, but the Canadian
Centre for Policy Alternatives was down here earlier this year and could not
even figure out how much it was for toddler care.
You could not even figure out how much it was for toddler care, how
much it costs in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I
think somebody said today that they did not know what they were talking
about. They showed that in the
City of St. John's, of all the cities in Canada, we have the second-highest
infant child care fees in all the country.
So they could find that but they could not find out – it is like
those reports with the OECD internationally.
That is an international embarrassment because all the data is
showing as an X because we do not know what the numbers are; we cannot show
what they are.
I
say to the minister, you cannot go and call around, as it has been suggested
somehow, to a few centres and try to figure out what it is from that because
it is not really that uniform.
The fees vary. We have some
not-for-profit, some for-profit.
There is a whole mix out there of child care providers and we cannot really
assess.
So,
the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which is a national research
outfit, they have some reputation, and they could not come to any conclusion
on what it was. Part of that is
we do not have sufficient monitoring compliance system.
We do not know what the average fees are.
We do not know how many seats we really have and so on and so forth.
We
do know that there are 63,800 children in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador aged up to twelve, and of these 39,600 have working mothers.
That is a significant number of those who have working mothers, but
that also means that only about 18 per cent, the data shows, of the demand
is actually being met. That is
below the 20 per cent nationally.
There are a variety of other issues.
If I had another hour to speak, I could go on about a variety of
other issues. When it comes to
early childhood educators, they will be the first to tell you they are the
lowest paid in the country.
There are things we want to achieve associated with, for example, how their
salaries relate to that of teachers, of Kindergarten teachers.
There is a whole lot we want to achieve in that way.
We want to ensure that eventually we have a system that truly does
meet the need of working families in the Province.
I
think I will leave it at that, but it has been a pleasure for me to address
a variety of different aspects of Bill 30.
Again, it is needed legislation; there is no question about that.
No one would argue that it is doing any harm, but these are modest
changes that really resemble housekeeping.
I
would not say, as the minister over there said the other day, much ado about
nothing – it is not that bad, but there is not a whole lot there.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
If this is your
legislative agenda, there is not a whole lot to it.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
remind the hon. member that his time is expired.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker, if I may.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo – La Poile, on a point of order.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I waited until now
because I wanted to receive the official copy of Hansard from yesterday's
proceedings, but now that I have it in my possession, I felt that the most
expedient time to bring this up, and this is in relation to comments uttered
yesterday in the House by the Member for Fortune Bay – La Hune, which I
believe were unparliamentary in nature.
Again, what we have here were the comments, and I can read them directly
here. It was during yesterday's
Address in Reply. The member
said, “I, for one, when I place my vote in this House of Assembly and when I
have my discussions with my colleagues about what the priorities would be in
the Budget, it will be about the people and what the people need most, Mr.
Speaker. It certainly will not
be asking for, my first priority for the Budget – and another thing I was
appalled to hear in listening to the news coverage shortly after the CBS
election, we will not be buying red Helly Hansen rain gear for members of
the Liberal Opposition Party. To
hear that asked for in the Budget, I could not believe it, and I thought,
wow, where has the Green Report gone?
Are there people reading the Green Report any more?
The priorities of government are long past taking care of members…”.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, again, Standing Order 49 references offensive language, and
there are plenty of rulings in the past, whether you are looking at O'Brien
and Bosc or looking at Montpetit, when it comes to making allegations or
alluding to certain behaviour by members.
I think we all know, and I do not need to go into explanation here,
about what the Green report was about and why that was brought in.
Again, it had to do with some serious issues in this House of Assembly when
it came to spending. That is why
we found it quite offensive yesterday when the member made accusations that
members of the Official Opposition would use public funds to buy things for
people – and that is quite offensive, and not only that, it is untrue.
Again, referencing the Green report, we found that quite offensive
and unparliamentary. At this
point what we would ask for is that the member withdraw the comments and
apologize.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS PERRY:
I withdraw the comments,
Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Child, Youth and Family Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. S. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I
have waited quite some time today to stand on my feet and speak to this
particular piece of legislation we are discussing here today.
It is odd that the Member for St. John's North said there were not
many changes and it was not anything of much significance.
He took an hour to explain it.
I
remember as a child, David Suzuki on
The Nature of Things explained
all human civilization to me in an hour.
Whatever the case, it was time well spent.
Considering how long the Opposition spoke about roundabouts the other
day, it is not surprising. It is
good that the member is engaged.
He says it is not significant and I would argue that.
We reference the fact that it has not had huge modifications in the
last number of years. That is
true. There have been small
changes made.
Child care has changed quite significantly in the last decade and a half and
we are all very aware of that.
As things change on the ground, we obviously have to react to that change.
That is what we are here today to discuss.
I,
for one, am very happy to be able to get up and speak to this legislation.
I am particularly happy, not only us as government, but that MHAs are
happy with it. AECENL has
expressed their pleasure with it as well.
It is one thing for us to be pleased with it and us to be happy with
something we develop, but we did it in consultation with others.
If you look at key stakeholders as I said, AECENL, they are very
pleased as well so certainly that speaks volumes.
Obviously it speaks to the importance of this and how well it was
done.
I
must say, Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit sad that I am not the minister
introducing this today. As many
of us know, this was legislation that was formerly under the Department of
Child, Youth and Family Services.
It is a great group of individuals who helped develop this and people
who I had worked with for a number of weeks.
It was not too long. I
was sad to see them go, but their good work continues under the Department
of Education and Early Childhood Development.
I
think it was a great move by the Premier to consolidate those two pieces.
There has always been an inherent disconnect, I think, when you look
at early childhood education in the traditional school system, and the
traditional K-12. It is nice now
to have that all under one umbrella group, all in one room.
I think some great work is going to happen there, as it has in the
past. When you have all the
players on the one team in the one room I think that will only benefit the
process itself.
I
will speak only a short time. For
people at home wondering how this all works, the House of Assembly – because
sometimes it can seem a little bit confusing.
Even some days to me, Mr. Speaker, it is confusing.
The fact is, in second reading the minister would have an hour to
introduce, and then the first speaker on the opposite side would have an
hour, an hour that the member took and I am glad he did.
He went through quite a bit in that hour.
As a
follow-up speaker I would have twenty minutes.
I probably will not take my whole twenty minutes, but I will take a
few moments to go through some of the changes.
Maybe they are not significant changes.
There are pieces I believe that are significant.
Holistically, the whole piece – you have to look at this whole thing
as a total package. There has
been some great work done on it.
These things cannot be done overnight.
It
is reacting to ground changes, if you will, with regard to child care.
It has changed. As I had
said, more people are working than ever before in this Province.
We have, obviously, a change in demographics and we have to respond
to those changes. It is very
important.
We
wanted to strengthen and clarify, as has been said before, and streamline
the process. That is always
important. We wanted to improve
transparency, particularly around the appeals process and statutory reviews.
Both are very important, as the member had pointed out.
We also wanted to improve flexibility, not only for parents who are
looking for child care, but also for the operators as well.
We have spoken at length here in this House over the last number of
years with trying to encourage operators and we have had great success in
the past. Through strengthening
legislation I think we can have further benefits in the future.
In
any process when you have consultation, it is always a great thing.
I was pleased at the extensive consultation that went on during this
process. We had good old
fashioned face to face, which we always need.
We had written submissions, and included in that were stakeholders as
well as the general public. It
was mentioned by the member opposite, with regard to CNA, he was not sure if
they were part of the process. I
can assure him they were invited to both rounds.
The first round was by invitation only, and then the second round of
consultation was open to the public for written submissions and whatnot.
They certainly were part of that
As I
had said before, you had key stakeholders.
I bring up AECENL again and the great work being done by that
organization. When they put
their stamp of approval on this, I think that speaks volumes.
It is very important to recognize that.
Mr.
Speaker, our government remains committed to creating a child care system
that provides quality, accessibility, and affordable regulated child care
spaces. It is a three-pronged
approach and the minister had spoken about the pillars.
That is certainly how we look at it.
All of those are equally as important because they all have to be
good in order for it to work
As a
parent I look at quality. I
think all of us parents would say quality has to be the most important.
Sufficiency has to play a role as well and you have to be able to
afford it. There are all of
those pieces. Are we where we
need to be? We are absolutely
not. I do not think anybody over on
this side would say we have made all the changes necessary and we live in a
utopia because we do not.
As a
parent of young children I have already lived this with my child in daycare.
I know the challenges that exist.
I do not want to sugar-coat anything, but I think it is important to
recognize where we are versus where we were.
It is a very different place where we sit today.
When
we speak to this legislation and the state of child care in this Province, I
am proud of the changes that have happened previously through my department
and now through the new Department of Education and Early Childhood
Development. They are some great
changes, but again, recognizing the fact there is a ways to go.
This, Mr. Speaker, obviously is a piece of that.
I
had spoken about September 30, 2014 when Premier Davis recognized that need
to put these two entities in the same room, if you will.
It was a great move. To
tell you the truth, I did not really see it coming and it was one of those
things I reflected on afterwards.
I said, you know what, it really makes sense and hindsight is 20/20.
You think, we probably should have done it before, but things are
always evolving and you know hindsight is 20/20.
I think the Premier in his wisdom made the right choice, and I think
you are going to see the benefits come from it.
I believe it is great because there was that inherent disconnect
between Child, Youth and Family Services having the early education,
childhood education and education in the traditional sense.
In
addition to bringing together units with similar educational
responsibilities, it enables CYFS to enhance its focus.
Our focus, as we all know, is child protection.
While I was sad to see that group of individuals or that arm of the
department moving over with education, it allows CYFS to really refocus on
child protection. That is our
mandate. It is so important and
a very sensitive topic obviously.
To allow our staff – and we have a great staff – to be able to focus
on child protection, not to say that our focus was not with it, but now we
can focus all of our energies. I
just think it makes sense all the way around.
It makes sense for Child, Youth and Family Services.
It makes sense for the Department of Education.
Again, a great move.
Children and their protection and safety are a key focus of our government,
Mr. Speaker. In February 2013,
our government officially launched a 10-Year Child Care Strategy.
As we know, that is entitled Caring For Our Future: Provincial
Strategy for Quality, Sufficient and Affordable Regulated Child Care in
Newfoundland and Labrador. It is
a great document. I encourage
all members on both sides of the House, and the general public for that
matter, to take a look at that document.
It may be very enlightening.
It
speaks to the three pillars and talking about those three pieces of quality,
accessibility and affordability.
Those are so very important. It
is probably one of the first documents I read when coming into the
department. I think everybody
needs to take the opportunity, so we can have an informed discussion, to
make sure you read that document.
I think you would be very pleased with what you see within it.
Our
government continues to strengthen regulated child care services throughout
the Province with the introduction of new initiatives and improvements to
existing programs and services under Caring For Our Future.
Mr. Speaker, that includes a few things that I have noted here:
announcing revisions to the Early Learning and Child Care Supplement in
order to attract a great number of qualified individuals to work in
regulated child care settings with increases to the supplement for Level I
or higher ECEs, and Level II or higher program operators.
That was effective April 1, 2013.
Again, we go back to the fact you have to have accessibility and you
have to have the individuals who are working there to be able to provide the
service, but you need the quality as well.
That
is something else that has changed in this industry in the last decade,
decade and a half, if you want to look at, is the level of professionalism
amongst the child care staff, or the early childhood educators.
I think that industry has completely transformed in the last number
of years. It is great to see
that level of professionalism there.
Their heart was always in it, but now we have been able to bring up
standards, and they are the ones who push it, Mr. Speaker.
They want to be recognized as professionals because they are, and the
services they provide are so vitally important to our children.
So, it is important to note that as well.
We
have revised the Early Childhood Education or the ECE, as we refer to it,
post-secondary program standards.
That certificate was available effective September 2012 at the
College of the North Atlantic.
Mr.
Speaker, we have also developed an ECE workplace training model to support
upgrading the qualifications of early childhood educators working in
regulated child care services.
Again, I talk about bringing up the level of professionalism.
I cannot say it enough, where they are today is so very different
from where they were in the past, and I think it speaks volumes to the
individuals they have working in that industry.
As
of June 2012, we had 7,815 regulated child care spaces throughout our
Province, which is almost a 70 per cent increase since 2003.
Since the strategy started, over 1,000 spaces have been created – so,
from 6,709 to 7,815. Again, huge
leaps, and it is not easy to simply create a space.
They just do not appear out of nowhere.
A lot of planning and strategy has to go into that and the uptake
from the private sector and public sector.
A lot of work has to go into that.
I think the fruits of our labour show in the numbers with that 70 per
cent increase, which is fantastic.
I
say, have we arrived where we need to be?
No, we still have much work to do.
That is why it is a ten-year strategy that we developed; it is not a
one-year strategy. Issues do not
arise one year. They arise over
a time period. Certainly, to be
able to address those changes you have to take a long-term approach, and
that is what we have done.
Our
government recognized the importance of supporting the health, safety, and
well-being of our children and families.
There is no doubt about that, and I am sure we all agree on both
sides of the House.
Research over the past ten years has spoken to the importance of early years
in terms of brain development and the lasting effects that early experiences
have on children's later successes.
I echo the remarks from the Member for St. John's North; he
recognizes that as well. That is
why it is great. You look at a
number of initiatives that various departments have undertaken in the last
number of months and years, and you look at the great work being done by
family resource centres, the parent resource kits.
When
I stand, I speak as the minister, but I also speak as a parent of two young
children. So I have seen
firsthand exactly those resources.
I know when I am here in St. John's there are many times when my wife
and children will be out to the family resource centres.
I have seen the parent resource bags.
They are fantastic resources.
They are provided to all new parents.
That is something we did not have in years past.
I think it is a great initiative.
I have seen it firsthand, and I commend the department for
implementing that. They
certainly are great.
We
talk about full-day Kindergarten.
I am happy to say my daughter will be in the inaugural class in 2016.
She will be in the first class, which is fantastic.
I do not know how I feel about it yet.
I cannot even imagine her going for half a day, let alone a full day.
Anyway, there have been such a number of things done for children in
their earliest years.
I
talked about the parent resource kits.
You talk about the Power of Play.
You talk about KinderStart.
You talk about the family resource centres and the different programs
and initiatives they have and sponsor.
Then you look at full-day Kindergarten.
There has been so much done in this field.
Again, I want to commend the department.
I
will not take too much time, Mr. Speaker.
I am just over thirteen minutes.
I do not think I need to take an hour to talk about what the minister
has already said, or regurgitate what the member opposite has said, but I
think it is important to recognize the fact that we have made changes to the
legislation. It has been a long
time in the making.
The
changes we have made were done in consultation with stakeholders, with
parents, with the public. I
think the feedback we are going to hear from these changes, as we have
already heard a little bit about it from, as I had said, AECENL and others,
that they are happy with this. I
think when you can bring forward a piece of legislation and the stakeholders
are happy, I think that is a good thing.
That is a good place to start.
I
suspect we will have a few more speakers on this, and that is good because
it is nice to be able to debate it.
It is an important subject matter.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak to it.
I look forward to hearing others comment.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
the District of St. Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, yesterday morning the Member for St. John's North and I were given
a briefing on this bill. The
briefing started at 11:30 a.m.
It was scheduled from 11:30 until 12:00 o'clock.
We were scheduled to have a thirty minute briefing the day before the
bill was to be introduced. If it
seems obvious to some of our viewers that we are not completely in support
of all the clauses and paragraphs of the bill, then maybe viewers will
understand that if the Opposition was given a briefing, which was no more
than thirty minutes long and it was the day before the bill was to be
introduced in the House, even though we have been sitting here now, this is
the second week, then maybe people will understand that this is how the
government tries to push through legislation in a hurry.
There is no doubt that regulated child care is necessary.
I am not disputing the intent of the bill.
The intent of the bill is noteworthy, it is needed, and it is a
potentially useful bill. I am
not certain as yet, until the Opposition has fully digested it and we have
debated back and forth as to whether it will be supported or not.
However, I am more inclined to support it than not to support it, not
because it is so great but because it is one small step.
It is like a baby step for child care, if that does not sound too
strange; the first baby step that this government has decided to take toward
child care.
Child care is really important in a number of ways.
Just by way of example, if you take even in the major centres, I
would not even say the smaller communities because I do not think the
smaller communities will have much need for this legislation.
The type of child care centres that seem to be envisioned are for
bigger communities, towns, and cities like St. John's.
Proper child care, reasonably priced, not the second highest in Canada,
which was the cost of infant child care that we see in St. John's by the
regional report. Reasonably
priced, high-quality child care can mean that – if I am not running the risk
of not being politically correct, I will assume that families who require
child care may well be two-parent families, although they may equally be a
one-parent family.
The
cost of child care, when compared to the amount of income that somebody can
earn, is quite prohibitive, unless the person is earning at a very high
level. We know, and it has been
forecast regularly, there is a significant labour shortage in our Province.
We see the signs all the time.
How would child care help that?
Mr.
Speaker, it would mean the second person in the family could go to work and
earn a second income, help support the economy, and generate more revenue,
while at the same time providing employment for the person who took care of
the child. That is as far
reaching in some of the areas as the child care legislation should go.
We should have properly regulated high-quality child care.
One of the concerns I have and given that the minister
who last spoke was the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, I am
sure that I may be forgiven if I express some –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. J. BENNETT:
– reservations about when you have a government that has a Child, Youth and
Family Services department and they have managed to have more than thirty
children die while in their care in the last five years, and they want to
regulate somebody else taking care of the children.
That seems to be a bit incongruous to me if they have fallen so far
short of the mark in the children who have actually been in their care, and
then not to even know that some of them had died is pretty dismal.
However, Mr. Speaker, the first concern I have with
this bill is the date on the bill.
I remember in the fall of 2011 when this government in this
Legislature was elected and hearing from the government they would not
bother to open the House that fall because there was no legislation
worthwhile introducing. I am certain
this legislation could have been introduced three years ago.
So, the date on this, which says November 20, 2014,
realistically could have said November 20, 2011 and we would have benefitted
from this legislation then for the past three years instead of waiting for
the last three years, and now this government is in a situation where it
seems they have to throw together whatever legislation they can find in
order to justify what this supposedly new government – which really is an
old government – is doing for the people.
We are faced with a series of bills.
We have the roundabout bill, and we have this bill and that bill.
Yesterday, it was the one on getting certificates, tax lien
certificates. It seems like
somebody in the planning stages of the government tried to figure out what
can we introduce, a bill that may or may not be necessary, that would make
us look good.
This is clearly a bill that, done properly, would make
the government look good.
However, in going through it and – in my case, it was only a twenty-five
minute briefing because they did not start until five minutes after and our
research assistant stayed behind and I would say benefitted, but I am not
sure if she did benefit from much in the briefing.
I took some notes in the first part of the briefing and the type of
things that I was told in the notes that I took in the briefing said there
is no defined appeal route in the current legislation.
The appeal route in this legislation has got some real serious
shortcomings.
Mr. Speaker, I am going start at the beginning of the
bill and go clause by clause to point out some of the issues and concerns
that I have. I realize that
government, and particularly the minister, will not want to hear that
because they do not like to listen to criticism, even though they surely
earned lot of criticism.
In section two in the definitions they say that a
parent means one of the following, it gives a list, and includes a foster
parent as defined in the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act.
Mr. Speaker, that is a good thing.
It is a good thing to define a foster parent as a parent for the
purpose of the act; but when you go further down and you look at relative,
then it says a relative means a parent, sibling, niece or nephew of a
parent. Now if a parent is a
foster parent then I take it that they mean they want a grandparent to be
considered a relative, and that is a good thing, but why should the parent
of a foster parent be considered a relative?
Mr. Speaker, I do not see why the parent of a foster
parent who may not have any connection with this family whatsoever should be
considered a relative. That is
what the legislation says. That
is just one of the early shortcomings.
Now under Administration, under section four, it seems
like the minister is attempting to delegate policy making to somebody else.
It is my understanding and I think that people elect government so
that government can establish policy, but what the minister wants to do with
this act is to “appoint a person to be the Provincial Director of Child Care
who shall be responsible for (a) establishing province-wide policies and
standards for child care services including licensing and facilities”.
Well, Mr. Speaker, shouldn't the department, shouldn't
the minister and the deputy ministers, establish the policy and standards
and then shouldn't the director actually apply the policies and standards?
Is this government so given up on governing the Province that now
they want to hire somebody who can do the policy making for them in a paid
position as a provincial director?
That seems to me to be a complete abdication of the obligation to
govern and they have an obligation to govern, not just a right to govern; it
is an obligation to govern.
They want to delegate Province-wide policies and
standards. How can that be
delegated? It cannot properly be
delegated in my view, Mr. Speaker.
Further in second six, they say, “The minister shall
appoint one or more inspectors who shall exercise the powers and perform the
duties and functions that are conferred or imposed on them by this Act and
the regulations.” It goes on to
say, “Inspectors appointed under this Act shall have the qualifications and
experience set out in the regulations.”
Mr. Speaker, when I asked the question about whether
there would be specific inspectors, a specific inspector under this act,
there may or may not be and it may be for applying the standards of this
act. When I asked about a
question such as what about health and safety – well, that would be to
somebody else who would inspect the building and the premises for fire and
other hazards. When I inquired
about what about health standards and cleanliness, like any sort of a
Department of Health inspection, I was told that would be the Department of
Health that would do that. So,
who is actually going to be doing the inspections on what basis?
So, when I pursued that line of questioning, and it is
easy to see why I just simply gave up on being briefed before we had gone
quite thirty minutes is because it was clear that the people who were sent
by the minister only had a perfunctory interest in showing up.
They were just basically passing time to be able to say that they had
actually provided a briefing.
So, it is –
MS SULLIVAN:
A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, on a
point of order.
MS SULLIVAN:
Mr. Speaker, the people who work in the Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development are very professional.
They did not show up on a perfunctory basis; they were there to do
whatever briefings were needed, and they would have stayed there until the
end of the day had he had enough information to ask questions about.
MR. SPEAKER:
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I heard the minister say earlier today that a manager
shall not be appointed as an inspector under this act.
I said: Well why not? Oh
well, because of a potential conflict of interest.
Well, I do not see why a manager would not be competent to be an
inspector. If a manager is
already qualified and competent to be an inspector and let us say the
manager is on site with a junior employee, maybe showing the person around
from the department and notices something, doesn't the manager have the
ability to be able to call an inspection?
The manager clearly should be qualified.
If, in fact, the minister had a legitimate concern –
and a lot of this is just filler that they put into the legislation to try
to get something to stick – about whether the manager was in a conflict or
not, then simply say, well, if one manager is the inspector, they have
already said they can have multiple managers under the act.
The manager on site can do the inspection, simply pass it over to
another manager and say I inspected this place, I do not think it is fit for
the kids to be in, I think you better get over to do something about it.
I am the witness, but I am the manager, I am also the inspector, so
take it off my hands to do it.
It would be very simple to work this out in the legislation or in the
regulations, if in fact they had paid much attention to what they were
doing.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to move an amendment.
I would like to propose an amendment to Bill 30 that in clause 33(1)
that 5 be deleted and be replaced by 3.
That
is, “The minister shall, every 5 years, conduct a review of this Act and the
regulations and consider the areas which may be improved.”
Mr.
Speaker, the amendment proposes to shorten this period of time from five
years down to three years.
Mr.
Speaker, I have a written copy.
MR. SPEAKER:
We will take a brief
recess to review what the member is suggesting.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
amendment has been considered and it is not in order.
I
would like to remind members that we are debating the principle of the bill
here in second reading and to come back to that at this point.
The
hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, in any piece of legislation, definitions are really important.
Every statute tends to contain its own definitions.
You cannot transfer them from one to the other.
When I look at agency – because this government is trying to set up
agencies to be able to handle child care, which in my view makes very good
sense, but agency is not properly defined.
If
you looked in section 2 under the definitions, section 2(b) says, “‘agency'
means an agency referred to in subsection 9(2)”.
Then if you go to section 9(2) it says, “An agency shall”.
It does not say an agency is.
It does not say what it is.
It says an agency shall – what it is supposed to do.
An agency shall approve affiliated child care; supervise affiliated
child care; provide supports to affiliated child care; appointment monitors
to exercise powers. It does not
say what the agency is. It just
says what it does.
Mr.
Speaker, to sort of bring the point home, it is almost like saying if you
have something: well, what is this thing?
This thing has four legs and fur.
Well, it must be a dog.
Well, no, it could be a cat. It
could not be a horse – but if you get it.
This does not say what the agency is; it says what the agency shall
do. It is simply not an adequate
definition to know the agency.
We need to know exactly what it is.
Another shortcoming in the bill, and I think this one is quite staggering,
in response to a question today the Premier referred to all of the – I think
he may have said good work, because I think that is the word he likes to use
– good work being done by non-profit agencies in child care.
Then when I read section 13, it says, “A manager may refuse to issue,
renew or vary a licence where”, and subsection 13(b) says, “the applicant is
applying for an agency licence and the applicant is not a not-for-profit
corporation or a corporation without share capital”.
Mr.
Speaker, that seems to say that simply because the applicant is a
not-for-profit corporation, a licence can be refused.
To me, that seems to be inconsistent with what the Premier said
earlier today. It seems to be
inconsistent with the intent of the act, unless the act simply does not want
non-profits to be involved in child care.
It would make as much sense, or maybe in some people's view, more
sense that a non-profit organization should have every right to set up child
care organizations. Why
shouldn't they?
The
clause immediately before it, 13(1)(a), is equally as troubling.
It says, “A manager may refuse to issue, renew or vary a licence
where (a) the applicant is a person who is younger than 19 years old”.
Isn't that discriminatory?
A person at eighteen years old is deemed to be an adult and able to
vote.
Now,
I know that one of the pieces of legislation our government has not gotten
around to changing in the last eleven years is they have not lowered the age
of majority from nineteen down to eighteen years.
I know that because quite often nineteen year olds are looking for
employment. They are looking for
employment in businesses that serve alcohol or sell tobacco products, and
legally they cannot be hired at age eighteen, under the age of nineteen,
where they are licensed to sell alcohol or tobacco products.
This
was really brought home when I represented an eighteen year old some years
ago who had won quite a substantial lottery.
The company he had won the lottery from took the position that he was
ineligible to accept the prize, even though the lotteries act and the age of
majority say that anybody under the age of nineteen can have a trustee
accept the prize for them.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Speaker has given the member quite a bit of latitude, and there will be an
opportunity to debate the clause by clause aspects of this bill.
In second reading we should be getting to the principle of the bill,
the general principle of the bill, so I would like for the member to come to
that.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
In
my view, to say that a person who is eighteen years of age, it is unlawful
for them to have a child care licence, to me it is quite discriminatory.
I do not think this section of this bill, if it turns into an act,
would survive a charter challenge.
I think an eighteen-year-old person could easily challenge this part
of this bill and say, this is a violation of my rights.
I am eighteen years old; why are you discriminating against me?
This
government is pretending to be interested in young people throughout the
Province, and they would put this in a piece of legislation as important as
this. It shows either a
disregard for young people, or they simply have not thought the legislation
through.
Mr.
Speaker, another section that is also problematic is, and this talks about
reviews. Now granted, there is a
right to review, which in this case means an appeal.
It says, “A request for review under subsection (3)” – which is the
earlier section in section 13 – “shall be in writing and made to the
minister within 30 days after the applicant receives the written reasons for
refusal.” That is good.
It
says, “A review shall be performed within 60 days of the receipt of the
written request and a written decision including reasons shall be sent by
regular mail to the person who requested the review…”
So why are we dragging this out?
Why are we making it thirty days, sixty days, or five days?
Clearly, if a person feels they are infringed against under this piece of
legislation, because now they were up and good to go or they were on a
renewal. We know that child care
spaces are in short supply in this Province and desperately needed.
We are dragging out this process, so now this person who just got the
clock stopped on them just lost at least ninety-five days.
When there are people standing by saying we need a place to send our
children, you have a problem with your licence.
Why
wouldn't this be expedited? Why
doesn't this show more consideration to how people work in the real world,
and give people more realistic and shorter times if this is the intent of
the legislation? I will have
more to say in Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
is certainly a pleasure for me to rise in this hon. House today, Mr.
Speaker, and discuss this very important piece of legislation.
It is a very proactive piece of legislation, I would say to you.
I think the minister has demonstrated exceptional leadership once
again in bringing this bill forward to the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS PERRY:
The changes to this piece
of legislation from the current act, as had been discussed, are going to
accomplish four main goals. This
new legislation will modernize, strengthen, and clarify the current
legislation. It has been fifteen
years since the last full review of this legislation.
Just as child care has changed and modernized over the last decade,
so too does our provincial legislation need to grow.
The
current Child Care Services Act was proclaimed in 1999.
With the changes outlined today, the new bill has been restructured
to reflect current knowledge in the child care field.
By providing stronger and clearer definitions of a child care service
and a child care provider, we are lessening the misinterpretation and
providing consistence for licensees.
The new legislation, Mr. Speaker, is going to streamline policies and
processes, enhancing our overall efficiencies in this regard.
Policies are currently found throughout a number of standards and other
documents. This legislation will
bring all of these policies under the one umbrella.
The changes in our legislation will support the consolidation and
reorganization of this information for ease of use.
Mr.
Speaker, this new legislation will also improve transparency and
accountability, which is very, very important to our government.
An appeals process is clearly outlined in the new legislation.
It was not in the current act.
This definition gives transparency to the process, and outlines
obligations and expectations for both parties.
Currently, eight provinces and territories have an appeals process described
in their legislation, including New Brunswick and PEI.
Another change will improve the transparency and accountability of
the inspection process. This new
act requires that a manager is not to be appointed as an inspector for the
reasons outlined by our minister.
Also, a mandatory five-year review of the legislation has been added,
including a public consultation which will also improve accountability.
Mr.
Speaker, as the minister outlined earlier, this legislation we are producing
here today has been developed in consultation with all of the key
stakeholders including the experts, the officials, and the parents.
We are very confident in this legislation.
We feel it is very important to mandate that this legislation is
reviewed every five years so we do not see ourselves in a situation where
there is a long gap in between seeing how society changes are adapting to
the legislative change.
The
new legislation improves flexibility as well, Mr. Speaker, for service
providers. By removing the
capacity limit on the licence, we are allowing owners to be more flexible
when determining the service they will provide, while ensuring quality
service with requirements including ratios, group sizes, staff
qualifications, and physical space requirements.
Mr.
Speaker, I do know that daycare is becoming increasingly important as we see
more and more women entering the workforce and we have more dual-income
families. I, for one, am very
confident that we have greatly strengthened the legislation here today in
the House. I look forward to
support from all members of this hon. House on these fantastic new
improvements that we are outlining here today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
The hon. the
Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I,
too, am happy to get the opportunity to stand and to speak to Bill 30, the
Child Care Services Act. I do
not think there is anything more important that we could be discussing here
in this House of Assembly than the issue of child care.
It is something I have been looking forward to, something I have been
anticipating, and wanting to be able to speak to.
It
is rather interesting, we were presented with the act and we were told that
this is a substantive act and a brand new act, modernizing the former one.
In actual fact, it is a lot of paper.
It is the act modernizing the former one, but very little of it is
new, as was explained to us in the briefing we had yesterday.
I do
thank the members of the department who briefed us yesterday.
As they explained, most of the bill was a restructuring of the old
bill and modernizing of some parts of it, clarifications of some parts, and
then outlined the things that were new.
They have been outlined by the minister and by others.
I
would like to point out that the key differences in this act from the
existing legislation are all basically technical and bureaucratic.
Those things need to be done.
Let us not kid ourselves; yes, it facilitates child care happening,
but the act itself does not have content around child care in it.
The act, as I said, is basically technical and bureaucratic.
Making sure there are clear definitions of what a child care service
is and what is a child care provider is important.
Those definitions are there and they are clear.
Making sure one understands what a regulated child care licence is,
and what constitutes a regulated child care licence is important, and that
has been done.
You
also have something in here that is not in the old act, and that is an
appeals process for a licensing decision.
That is important. If
somebody has a licence removed and they think that it is an incorrect
decision, obviously there should be an appeals process, but once again a
technical, bureaucratic thing.
It is important. I am not saying
it is not important.
Then
we have the fact that now instead of the Lieutenant Governor in Council
appointing the Provincial Director of Child Care, the minister will appoint
the Provincial Director of Child Care.
I agree with that. It is
a normal practice in the public service sector, and I do not know why it was
not like that before. It
is important, but once again it is a technical thing.
The number five point, which is new, is the fact that
regional managers will now not be appointed as inspectors.
They should not have been because a regional manager is at the heart
of the delivery of the services.
They are, in a way, where you would have a conflict of interest if regional
managers are also acting as inspectors.
I think it is very good.
As the minister pointed out in her notes – and I am
using the minister's notes on this one – this will provide greater
transparency in the inspection process.
That is definitely true.
I am really glad to see this happen.
If you had regional managers of the program also doing the
inspection, I think transparency would be just about non-existent.
I think it is an important change,
but once again not a change that has to do with the content of child care
delivery. It is technical and it
is bureaucratic.
The
sixth one is more than that and it is extremely important.
That is the call for the statutory review that will be required every
five years, and the fact that there has to be a public consultation as part
of that statutory review. I
think that is very important. I
am glad to see it is in the new act.
The act is important, but the act does not deal with the content of
the actual child care program itself.
The
minister talks about, and again I agree with it, the fact that in the new
department that has been created – and I am delighted that we have the new
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development – we now will have a
complete continuum of learning from infancy to high school.
I want to talk about that a bit, Mr. Speaker, because that certainly
is something that we want to see, and that is that we have a continuum of
learning from the time a child is born right through.
Up
to now, we have had two very separate pieces.
We have had our educational system under the Schools Act from K-12,
and then we had everything that happened before that under the Child Care
Act. This separation into those
two places meant for a couple of things, Mr. Speaker.
It meant for a break even in the way in which we saw the development
of the child. The treatment of
the child from infancy, say, to Kindergarten, just before going into
Kindergarten, was a different reality than from Kindergarten on.
One
of the concerns I want to express – and it is a concern I have heard from
early childhood educators. I
attended a meeting in Labrador some five or six weeks ago and this issue
came up where the early childhood educators are delighted about the fact
that the department has come together.
They would be delighted, I am sure, if they heard the minister say
yesterday or this morning, as she did, that this will allow for a complete
continuum of learning from infancy to high school.
Their concern is will the new department recognize that what happens in the
first five years, let's say, is just as important as what happens
afterwards, yet it is different than what happens afterwards, so that the
model that may be used in the educational system beginning in Kindergarten
may not be the model for the development of the child prior to that.
By that, I mean that the development of the child prior to going into
Kindergarten is educational, but the model for that development is a totally
different model. When one sits
with early childhood educators and listens to them, one understands what
could be the difference in the two places.
When
I was there at the workshops that they held in Labrador, I remember saying
to them the principles of the development of the child prior to five that
they follow really should be the principles of the whole educational system.
I think what they would like to see happen is that the educational
system would become informed by the principles of early childhood
development rather than the other way around.
I am
not mocking our educational system.
I have been part of that educational system, but very often as we get
into the more structured educational process and the more structured
classroom kind of situation it is possible to forget how important it is
that the education centers on the child.
The
early childhood educators are really looking forward to the new department
and the fact that child care is now part of the educational system, looking
forward to that really, really meaning that there is a continuum, and that
there are changes along that continuum but that the whole flow is one.
What
I am sorry about is that the Child Care Act, the Child Care Services Act,
that we are discussing today does not have anything in it referring to that.
One can say well, the purpose of it is to be exactly what it is, a
technical document and a bureaucratic document, and one could say that the
Schools Act is that as well.
I
note if we go to the Schools Act, which should be related to this act since
now both of these areas are under the one department, in the Schools Act
care is taken – and we actually made these amendments not too long ago.
While we do not talk about what the curriculum is in the school
system and we do not talk about the details of the content of what happens,
care is taken in the Schools Act in recent amendments – I cannot remember if
we made them last spring or the year before, but to put in, for example,
when talking about the responsibility of students and what the
responsibility is within school, there is in section 11 the statement that
students should be concerned about creating a safe and caring learning
environment. That is a really
important statement. When you go
to section 24 of the Schools Act it talks about principals and they have to
promote a safe and caring learning environment, and they have to promote
co-operation between school and communities that the school serves.
It
is disappointing to me that this Child Care Services Act does not have some
statements like that about what the responsibility of child care providers
is with regard to the atmosphere that is created.
We have it in the Schools Act; I am sorry that it is not in here.
I think that putting the child care in the context of the values that
we want to have in child care facilities and the values of the quality of
the services that are provided is extremely important.
I
did ask during the briefing about section 4 of the act where it says, “The
minister shall appoint a person to be the Provincial Director of Child Care
who shall be responsible for (a) establishing province-wide policies and
standards for child care services including licensing and facilities”.
I asked about that.
In
(b) as well it says, “establishing province-wide policies and standard for
persons involved in operating a child care service”.
I asked: Does that include everything about the program itself?
Does it include the content and the type of program that is being
offered for the development of children in child care?
The answer was yes, but I am sorry that in this section there was not
something put in that got at that, just like in the Schools Act we have the
statement about promoting a safe and caring learning environment.
It would be a different kind of statement in here, but I think it
would have been good to have something in here to give a sense of what we
value in our child care, and it is missing.
I see the minister nodding and as an educator herself, I think she
knows what I am talking about.
What
we have is a technical document that does not seem to have a heart in it.
The Schools Act, too, is pretty technical, but that piece in the
Schools Act makes a difference.
So I would ask the minister to consider that.
It may be too late to get it changed, but maybe not, and maybe we can
talk about that. Maybe something
could go in by the time we get into Committee that could get a statement in
there that would get a sense of what it is we value, what it is we want the
development to be. What are the
principles, what are the values on which it is going to be based?
We probably have that. It
is probably there in the quality statement that goes with the regulations,
but is there something there that could go in the act as well to make the
connection? I put that out to
the minister to think about.
I
cannot right now on my feet come up with that, but I think we have time to
think about that and see if that could happen.
Then it would sort of mirror or echo something that we did put in the
Schools Act, which was an amendment that was added fairly recently actually
in the Schools Act. So, from
that perspective I ask the minister to consider that.
I
have a couple of other points I do want to make, Mr. Speaker, before sitting
down, but I want to get my notes carefully together here.
The
government is making steps, there is no doubt about it.
We are moving ahead slowly, very slowly with regard to our child
care. I think that government
needs to get more involved in consultations, especially with the Association
of Early Childhood Educators of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I know that government works closely with them; however, when I read
the submission they made in consultations, and I read what they are talking
about, I say, well, I do not think government has totally heard yet some of
the things that they are saying.
In the submission they made to government during consultations, they had a
lot to say about licensing and what the minimum licensing should be.
They
also had a lot to say about the issue of the professionalism, how we
recognize the need for the professionalism and the status of the early
childhood educators. I think the
challenge for government and for the minister is going to be that we have
two different pieces of work now in one department with real conflicts.
In the department now we have a department that deals with education,
with teachers that have a very high standard.
I
want to get my correct section here now.
When we look at teachers in our school system, for example, let's
look first at the annual salaries.
According to this document which I have in my hand, the teachers in
Newfoundland and Labrador, the average wage is $67,000, whereas for early
childhood educators it is $29,785.
The salary of an ECE, an early childhood educator, is 45 per cent
that of teachers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL:
Are we saying that a
child, before entering Kindergarten, the development of that child and the
qualifications that are needed for that child are less than the day the
child goes into Kindergarten?
This is a real issue.
I
just came actually from having been at a gathering last night down at the
Sheraton Hotel held by the Federation of Labour on child care.
We had six specialists there presenting on child care last night at
that workshop. This is one of
the concerns they have.
Why
is it that we have this box of K-12, and what happens before it is outside
of the box? I think the
challenge for the minister is going to be opening up that box, opening up
the end at the beginning, and making sure that everything we say from K on
is just as important as what happens before that.
Helping the early childhood educators, maybe, who are not beyond Level 2 to
get beyond Level 2, and giving them what they need to be able to do that.
Raising the salary of early childhood educators is not going to be
enough to have this act and to have everything now under the department,
unless we look at the fact that we have this terrible discrepancy between
teachers from Kindergarten on and early childhood educators.
What
I am looking forward to, while we are making strides in this Province, we
have a lot more to do than just put everything together under one ministry.
The amount of work that has to be done is extensive.
I am wondering if we will get to the point where we will not have a
Child Care Act here and a Schools Act there, but we will have an act that
brings everything together under one umbrella so that we even have an act
that will reflect the continuum of learning and development that the
minister talked about.
I
put these ideas out, Mr. Speaker.
I look forward to pursuing them further when we are in Committee.
I look forward to maybe looking at that possibility of getting some
kind of a statement about, what are the values and principles we want to
have for child care?
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
It
is a wonderful opportunity to get up today and to, first of all, speak in
support of Bill 30, An Act To Regulate Child Care Services.
As well, I am very pleased to stand up and talk about this
government's commitment to child care in this Province.
I
have been around here, not as long as some people but pretty close to it.
The person I am looking at is a lot grayer than I am.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it is a – when we talk about children, and we
have heard some horrendous stories in this House about what has happened to
children in this Province. It is
nice to come in to see a bill presented and all speakers, but one, who stood
up today really spoke in support of this bill and were very respectful, I
say to the minister.
MR. J. BENNETT:
(Inaudible).
MR. HEDDERSON:
No, I am not
laughing, I say to the member from up on the Northern Peninsula, St. Barbe,
because this is a very serious bill.
One that after fifteen years, and certainly another Administration
brought in the initial bill and it has worked.
As we have all said, except for one, it is very important that we do
restructure it, that we do bring it forward to the House so all can look at
what has happened in the past and move forward.
This bill fits the bill.
It really does.
The
minister clearly outlined today what it is all about.
It is all about quality for the children of this Province, for their
parents and guardians, for all of the people of this Province.
Because the first thing we have to do in any jurisdiction, we have to
make sure we take care of our children.
There is nobody, I think, in this House who does not think that.
This
bill is more than housekeeping, because it does set the tone certainly for
the next five years until there is an automatic review.
I doubt when they have that review that there will be much in the way
of amendments because there have been significant changes in this Province
in the last fifteen years. This
bill will cater to that, and we will make sure that we are on the right
road.
Mr.
Speaker, we have to be respectful of the people who are going to carry out
the intent of this bill. We have
to have trust. We have to have
faith. Now, you can send out
inspectors, and some will say, well they will only go out and they will not
do their job. How can anyone say
that? They do not know who these
inspectors are. They do not know
who they are or where they came from and so on.
To just get up in the House and say no, that is foolishness, that is
not going to happen – inspectors.
Then, talked about managers, and one manager will somehow connive
with another manager and this sort of thing.
That has no place in this House; that is speculation.
You think someone who is in a court of law would be able to
distinguish between speculation and fact.
There are people out there listening who have the care of their children in
their hands. How would you think
they would feel today of I got up and said you do not know how to do your
job and I do not trust you to do your job? This
bill clearly outlines – because it is all about quality – the space, the
numbers, to make sure that it is safe.
Then, to talk about officials from the Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development, to talk about them as if they do not know what they
are talking about. The work that
has gone into this bill, many of us in this House would never know.
I tell you from my experience of sixteen years dealing with the
public servants of this Province, I have trust in the people who brought
forth this bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON:
I will stand on my
feet, Mr. Speaker, and I will defend them to the utmost, and anyone, and
anyone, and anyone –
MR. J. BENNETT:
(Inaudible).
MR. HEDDERSON:
Again, the Member for
St. Barbe cannot even bite his tongue for ten seconds – because you do not
see it. I say to the Member for
St. Barbe: You have a history of this.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I
ask the member to direct his comments to the Chair.
MR. HEDDERSON:
Mr. Speaker, the
Member for St. Barbe has a history of this.
We know, because we dealt with it here in this House.
What I am saying is that we –
MR. J. BENNETT:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member for St. Barbe, on a point of order.
MR. J. BENNETT:
Could the member from
tick tock clarify his comments please, Mr. Speaker?
The member from – I forget where his district is now, somewhere out
around the bay. I would ask him
to clarify what he just said.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The
hon. the Member for Harbour Main, to continue.
MR. HEDDERSON:
Mr. Speaker, I hate
to leave anything hanging but with the lateness of the hour, I would ask for
adjournment of debate and let me get another chance perhaps to come back at
another time. As the clock is
counting down, I ask for an adjournment.
MR. SPEAKER:
Does the member want to
make a motion and name a seconder?
MR. HEDDERSON:
I move that we
adjourn debate, seconded by the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that debate now be adjourned.
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, debate adjourned.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs,
that the House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that this House do now adjourn.
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
The
House stands adjourned until 2:00 o'clock tomorrow, Wednesday, Private
Members' Day.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00
p.m.