November 27, 2014
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 47
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we have members'
statements from the Member for the District of Exploits; the Member for the
District of Harbour Main; the Member for the District of Conception Bay South;
the Member for the District of Baie Verte – Springdale; the Member for the
District of Bay of Islands; and the Member for the District of St. John's North.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, on November 2, 2014 Natasha Penney completed a twenty-year educational
journey with a Political Science Degree from Mount Allison University; however,
this was no ordinary journey.
Natasha
was two weeks of age when she was diagnosed with congenital kidney disease.
Born in Bishop's Falls, she first enrolled at Mount Allison's Applied
Human Nutrition Program in 1994.
Less than two months into the degree she had to leave to undergo her second
kidney transplant – her first lasted six years, and the donor had been her
father.
Mr.
Speaker, with much support from her family, Natasha enrolled again at Mount
Allison in 2008 in Political Studies, while still undergoing dialysis treatment.
However, her studies were interrupted by four more operations in
2010-2012, and again in 2013 she underwent her third kidney transplant.
It took eight weeks for the kidney to work and more surgery to correct a
complication, but she never felt she had to discontinue her studies.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating a woman
with tenacity and determination, on completing an unwavering twenty-year
educational journey, Natasha Penney.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Harbour Main.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure I rise in this hon. House today to
congratulate two siblings, Captain Ashley Robyn FitzPatrick and Master Corporal
Jamie FitzPatrick of a community in the District of Harbour Main, Roaches Line.
Both these siblings received military commendations for their services,
dubbed “beyond the demands of normal duty”.
While
deployed to Italy in support of NATO operations in Libya, then Lieutenant
FitzPatrick witnessed a civilian fall from a work vehicle.
After rushing to his aid in the middle of a four-lane highway, she
realized he was not breathing and had no pulse.
She directed a bystander to call emergency services and began performing
CPR until the paramedics arrived.
Lieutenant FitzPatrick's selfless and decisive actions contributed to saving
that person's life.
Her
brother, Master Corporal Jamie Fitzpatrick's contributions were in another part
of the world, and his contributions led to the successful implementation of
Tactical Common Data Links network and Remote Optically Viewed Enhanced Receiver
system in support of the G8 and G20 summits, and again his contribution have led
to greater security for all involved in those events.
As a
side note, Mr. Speaker, both are the children of Tom and Dale Russell
Fitzpatrick of Roaches Line and great-grandchildren, I might add, of our first
former Premier Joseph R. Smallwood.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Captain
Ashley Robyn FitzPatrick and her brother Master Corporal Jamie FitzPatrick on
receiving these very distinguished military commendations.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay South.
MR. HILLIER:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House today to recognize Royal Canadian Legion Branch 50, Kelligrews.
This marks the forty-third anniversary of the branch and I am pleased to
say that in attendance at the recent anniversary dinner were three of the
founders: Mr. Gerald Greenslade, Mr. Gerry Kelly, and Ms Ida Leonard.
During
the evening the branch dedicated a new Veteran's Centre.
With pictures, memorabilia, and comfortable furniture this room is
designed as a quiet area for veterans.
Kristyn
Chaffey, a student at Queen Elizabeth High School, was the guest speaker.
She talked about her visit to Beaumont Hamel and her feelings about how
veterans are currently being treated in Canada.
She also told us that she had left the National War Memorial just moments
before Corporal Nathan Cirillo had been shot.
She would have been one of the last people to have seen him alive, in
uniform, standing guard.
Branch
President Robert Hillier presented executive pins, anniversary pins, and
certificates of appreciation. The
branch made a presentation of a cheque to the Special Olympics.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to please join with me in
recognizing the work of Royal Canadian Legion Branch 50, Kelligrews.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie
Verte – Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It was a
milestone for the Baie Verte Volunteer Fire Department.
On Saturday, November 8, they celebrated their fiftieth anniversary.
I rise
in this hon. House today to congratulate the dedicated firefighters and the Town
of Baie Verte for their unselfish volunteer years of service, not only to their
community but to the entire region.
The
Minister of Justice and Public Safety brought greetings, along with Provincial
Fire Chief Vince MacKenzie.
Numerous
certificates were presented, along with the 2014 firefighter of the year, which
was captured by Craig Furey. Fire
Chief Lorne Head and past chiefs are to be commended for their leadership, and
Mayor Clar Brown and his council and past mayors and councils are also to be
applauded for their strong, generous support.
Fifty
years of service is a tremendous feat.
The region has reaped the benefits of unselfish efforts of the dedicated
firefighters.
Also,
the spouses and partners are to be recognized as well because they too make
sacrifices to enable the firefighters to carry out their responsibilities.
Honourable members, please join me in extending hearty congratulations to the
Baie Verte volunteer firefighters upon their fiftieth anniversary.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Bay
of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House today to recognize the girls volleyball team from St. James All Grade
School in Lark Harbour.
Earlier
this fall, the team competed in the VolleyCentral competition winning silver and
earning the right to compete in the Division A Regional Volleyball championship
which was held last weekend at Grandy River Collegiate in Burnt Islands.
This team won gold and will now be travelling this weekend to Musgrave
Harbour to compete against nine other teams in the Girls A Provincial Volleyball
championship
Mr.
Speaker, the twelve-member team, comprised of Grade 10, 11, and 12 girls,
included Riley Pennell, Olivia Perry, Chloe Connolly, Leslie Lushman, Crystal
Sheppard, Sarah Sheppard, Brianna Murrin, Joanna Sheppard, Jessie Youden, Leah
Callfas, Courtney Pennell, and Kennedy Sheppard.
The team, under the guidance of their coaches, Suzanne Gilbert and
Heather Oates, have worked hard and are very committed to their team.
These young athletes exemplify true sportsmanship and are great
representatives of St. James All Grade School.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all members to join me in extending congratulations to the St.
James Girls Volleyball team and wish them every success as they compete this
weekend in the provincial championships.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand
in the House today to recognize Chrissy Young and Faith Purcell, who were both
awarded the Volunteer of the Year Award by the Rabbittown Community Centre last
month. Both individuals are
exemplary community volunteers.
Chrissy
Young is a member of the Rabbittown Community Centre's Board of Directors, and
the neighbourhood Tennant Association.
She is also involved in all aspects of programming at the community
centre and is always eager to lend a hand whenever it is needed.
The
second recipient, Faith Purcell, is a student at Prince of Wales Collegiate and
an active participant in Rabbittown's youth programs.
Over the past two years, she has taken on a leadership role as a junior
youth mentor to the children enrolled in the centre's summer day camp.
She also volunteers weekly with the after school program.
Both
Chrissy and Faith regularly help out with the Rabbittown Community Centre's
special events and annual celebrations.
The staff at the centre have told me they look forward to Faith and
Chrissy's continued service to the Rabbittown community over the years to come.
I ask
all hon. members to join me in congratulating Chrissy Young and Faith Purcell on
being recognized for their exceptional volunteer work.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
pleased to rise today in this hon. House to acknowledge November as National
Crohn's and Colitis Month.
National
Crohn's and Colitis Month provides a valuable opportunity to raise awareness of
the challenges faced by individuals and families dealing with these diseases.
It also creates an avenue for greater discussion about how we can support
and educate those who have been newly diagnosed, as well as inform the general
public who interact with those suffering on a daily basis.
Mr.
Speaker, chronic diseases impact the health of the population as a whole and
place significant demands on the health care system.
As a department, we have put a significant focus on chronic disease
management and have supported the introduction of medications and programs to
help those living with these diseases lead healthier lives.
While a cure has yet to be discovered, Crohn's and colitis research can
lead to better treatment options and support programs for people living with
this chronic disease.
The
Department of Health and Community Services works closely with organizations
such as Crohn's and Colitis Canada and other community partners that provide
support to people living with chronic diseases in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, Crohn's and Colitis Canada has embarked on a new national awareness and
fundraising campaign this month. The
Make it Stop. For Life campaign aims
to educate by providing a glimpse into the realities of living with these
diseases. The campaign also helps
affected individuals learn new ways they can cope more effectively with their
diseases and thrive.
Twenty-eight Canadians are diagnosed with Crohn's or colitis every day.
Approximately 129,000 have Crohn's disease and 140,000 have ulcerative
colitis. One in every 150 Canadians
suffers from these diseases.
Mr.
Speaker, I commend Crohn's and Colitis Canada for its continued support and
awareness efforts on behalf of Canadians living with these diseases.
I encourage everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador to visit the awareness
campaign's Web site at
www.crohnsandcolitis.ca to gain deeper understanding of the challenges faced by so many across
our country.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
I, too, want to commend Crohn's and Colitis Canada for its support and
awareness efforts on behalf of people of Newfoundland and Labrador living with
these diseases. They have a
devastating impact on the overall health of one in 150 Canadians, and there is
no cure.
A 2012
report indicates they are on the rise and are costing Canada about $2.8 billion
annually. Some people mistakenly
think that they only affect our older population; however, this is not the case.
It is affecting children as well as adults.
In fact, a new study just released in October has seen a steep increase
in the rise of this disease in children diagnosed before ten years of age.
The
number of new cases in Canadian children has almost doubled since 1995.
A lot of research has been done in understanding this; however, much more
needs to be done in order to find a cure and to improve the quality of life for
those living with it.
We
should continue to support Crohn's and Colitis Canada, and their provincial
division, and help ensure that people living with the disease are provided the
necessary care and treatment they require.
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 an advance copy of his statement.
I also commend Crohn's and Colitis Canada for their hard work raising
awareness and support for people living with these diseases, but I am sure the
people they represent are awaiting to see what government itself will do to help
people with their disease.
Government covers only colostomy supplies for people with very low fixed
incomes, leaving others to pay for these costly supplies on their own.
I continually get calls from people who say that they lack of support is
causing them real hardship and they do wish that government would take up the
cause and cover colostomy supplies.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House today to highlight the agricultural research symposium: Our Food, Our
Future: Research that Feeds Newfoundland and Labrador which was held recently in
Corner Brook.
The
symposium was organized by the Department of Natural Resources and Grenfell
Campus, Memorial University, and brought together 120 farmers, educators,
agricultural professionals and others interested in Newfoundland and Labrador
agriculture. It was an opportunity
for these groups to hear about current research, to network, and to identify
gaps and opportunities in research.
The
comments we received after the symposium certainly expressed the positive work
being undertaken to grow this industry.
Attendees said they were impressed with the event and by what is
happening in the provincial industry.
Organizers were told the information coming out of the symposium will
“help move the industry forward” and that we “are leading in so many ways!”
The work
accomplished at the symposium is helping the agriculture industry meet its
potential. A provincial agriculture
research strategy will be developed based on comments heard at the past two
agricultural research symposia, as well as the strategic directions established
by the Agricultural Research Advisory Committee.
This committee comprises representatives from government, commodity
boards, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture, Agriculture and
Agri-Foods Canada, Memorial University of Newfoundland, and the Institute of
Agrologists.
The
value of production from the rapidly expanding agriculture industry is
approximately $500 million per year.
The industry is a significant economic generator, employing 6,500 people.
The
provincial government is a strong supporter of Newfoundland and Labrador's
agriculture industry. We recently
announced a new $7 million initiative with the federal government to further
grow the cranberry industry in this Province.
Through Growing Forward 2, $6 million will be allocated for ninety-five
projects in Newfoundland and Labrador during 2014.
Mr.
Speaker, there is tremendous opportunity and interest in expanding research in
agriculture and agrifoods. As
stewards of this industry, the provincial government allocates $1 million
annually to support agriculture research and development.
Priorities identified by the industry are being addressed on such topics
as grain production, crop diversification, and soil improvement.
We look forward to furthering the provincial agriculture research
strategy, as well as other research and development efforts, in the months to
come.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
George's – Stephenville East.
MR. REID:
I thank the minister for an
advance copy of his statement.
Agriculture is a big industry in the district I represent and I want to
congratulate the Department of Natural Resources and Grenfell Campus for hosting
the agricultural symposium.
Unfortunately, the agriculture industry is following much the same pattern as
our fishing industry. While the
value of industry is increasing, the number of farmers in this Province is
declining. The average age of a
Newfoundland and Labrador farmer is steadily rising.
According to the 2011 Census, the average age was fifty-five years, up
from fifty-two in 2006.
While we
have improved production of some products like cranberries, we continue to be in
a difficult position if we are unable to bring fruits and vegetables into this
Province for a prolonged period of time.
More must be done to encourage the younger generation to get involved in
the agricultural industry. More must
be done to protect our agricultural lands.
Most
agriculture today is limited to the areas around Goulds, Deer Lake, the
Heatherton and the Highlands area, and the Codroy Valley.
Although the farming industry is expected to post modest gains in 2014 it
is –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
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.
The NDP strongly supports the Province's growing and sustainable
agriculture industry and agree with the minister about its tremendous potential.
The
minister lists priorities identified by the industry and I would like to suggest
a few more to the minister: a provincial food security plan; promotion of local
markets and bolstering food security by creating an agency linking small
producers with restaurants, stores, and consumers; encouraging farmers
co-operators to share facilities and marketing; legislation ensuring we do not
lose any more of our valuable developed agricultural land; and, more value-added
processing of our agricultural products to name a few.
I hope the minister has taken notes.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
update this hon. House on a provincial government investment which are providing
more physical activity opportunities for children and youth in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The
provincial government, in partnership with School Sports Newfoundland and
Labrador, recently announced a $300,000 investment in Participation Nation
Unplugged.
This is
an after-school physical activity program designed to help provide inclusive,
non-competitive opportunities to increase physical activity and promote healthy,
active lifestyles in the after-school time period.
This program works with participating schools to help identify and remove
barriers to increasing physical activity.
As the
Minister responsible for wellness, I recognize the need to encourage youth to
decrease their screen time and to get up and start moving towards a more active
lifestyle. It might be a good
practice for some in this House too, Mr. Speaker.
The
provincial government's investment in Participation Nation Unplugged came about
as the result of the After-School Physical Activity Pilot Initiative, which was
implemented at twenty-five sites from 2011-2014, Mr. Speaker.
The pilot results indicated a positive impact from increasing
opportunities for students to participate in after-school physical activities.
As such, the twenty-five pilot sites will be invited to become a part of
the Participation Nation Unplugged program, and existing programs will have the
opportunity to expand their activities from one day to two days a week.
In
addition, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government continues to support
recreation, sport, and physical activity through various programs, such as the
Community Recreation Development Program, Community Capital Grants, Physical
Activity Equipment funding, and the Premier's Athletic Awards.
Mr.
Speaker, with the support of the provincial government, community partners and,
most importantly, parents, I believe we can encourage young people to develop
active, healthy lifestyles and habits that will serve them well throughout their
lives.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Bay
of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
As with the private member's motion yesterday, we all in this House
support active living by the kids in sports in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, Participation Nation Unplugged is a great activity.
I encourage the government and I support this initiative – anything we
can do to get our youth moving.
Congratulations to the parents and the sites that have been selected and to the
volunteers who will help to go from one day to two days a week, the parents and
the kids.
I just
say to the minister if you are in to a school like you did in Bay of Islands in
Sacred Heart, I would love to come along to one of your programs.
It would be nothing more than introduce the program to all the kids who
are there and help the kids promote it as you are in the school.
Mr.
Speaker, as a side note, it would be much nicer to see the Minister of Fisheries
and Aquaculture doing Zumba down at Sacred Heart school.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Mr. Speaker, $300,000 for the whole Province for an inclusive program to
increase physical activity and promote healthy lifestyles is a mere drop in the
bucket. As a matter of fact, it
barely pays for the bucket – really.
Really,
Mr. Speaker, kids need more regular, frequent gym classes in school and more
after-school programs for all kids in all schools.
After a three-year pilot program, this initiative should be a permanent
fully funded program in all 264 schools across the Province.
Shame on this government for trying to show this as something wonderful
and innovative – shame on them!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last
November the Minister of Transportation confirmed at the announcement of a new
ferry vessel that tariffs were included in the $51 million cost.
He reconfirmed that in this House on December 2, less than a month later;
today, it is a different story.
I ask
the minister: Will you now confirm that if the federal government does not waive
the $25 million in tariffs that the contract bid for the two new ferries was
not, in fact, the lowest bid?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have
a responsibility, this Administration does, to provide vessels that provide the
service to the people in this Province – safe, reliable vessels that are state
of the art. Mr. Speaker, it was this
Administration that put in the first ferry replacement strategy in this
Province's history.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
We have done that: two
vessels built servicing the great people of this Province, two more months away
to service other islands in this Province, Mr. Speaker; weeks away from
announcing an RFP to replace vessels and a service for the people of Labrador;
and in the near future also to replace services to the coast parts of this
Province.
We are
the Province that took the lead. We
are the Administration that did that, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to service
the people here with the best provided service possible.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, that did not in
any way answer the question that I asked, so I will ask it again.
If the
federal government does not waive the $25 million in tariffs on these two new
vessels, will he confirm that the awarded contract is not, in fact, the lowest
bids on these two vessels?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon.
member is right; it did not answer the question there.
What it did outline is the commitment of this Administration to provide
services. What I will say to the
hon. member is we announced that we would pay $100 million to Damen Shipyards
because they have an expertise second to none in this world to be able to
provide services, and that is what we have contracted.
Mr.
Speaker, also in response to the question, we are going through a process.
We are going through a process with the federal government.
We are confident that tariff will be waived.
There is a precedent already set.
My officials and the officials in other departments are working with the
federal officials. If I feel that is
not moving fast enough, I will intercede with the federal minister.
If then it is still felt that it is not moving fast enough, the Premier
will intercede, Mr. Speaker. We will
provide that service that will be affordable to the taxpayers of this Province,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Mr.
Speaker, I am going to ask this again.
If the tariffs are not waived will the minister confirm that these two
contracts are not, in fact, the lowest bids?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as the previous Administration put in
place the Nonia, it might have got
them the lowest price; it did not get them the best service.
We are about service.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
BRAZIL:
We
are going to provide the service to the people of this Province.
We have one of the best shipyards in the world supplying vessels to us
and we are confident that tariff will be waived.
The contracted amount, Mr. Speaker, is what we will pay
Damen; that is what the taxpayers of this Province will be on the hook for.
The people of this Province will get the service they deserve.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Mr.
Speaker, with the $25 million tariff included, the price of the ferry contracts
is higher than some of the other bids.
We know that; the minister knows it as well.
The minister stated that the cost is not the only
factor and quality product is more important to the taxpayers.
I ask the minister: Are you saying that the other bidders were not
capable of providing new vessels that are quality for this Province?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I am saying is that we have a process.
There was an RFP put out across the world and we had a number of
respondents, Mr. Speaker. We had a
process in place, very competent individuals within my department who assessed
the best service that we could provide to the people of this Province, and we
did that.
The component that will supply the services for us is
Damen Shipyards. They will supply –
for $100 million – two state-of-the-art vessels that will service the great
people of Fogo Island – Change Islands and the people of Bell Island, Mr.
Speaker. We are very proud of that
contract that will be put in place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Mr.
Speaker, tariffs have only been waived in one exceptional circumstance by the
federal government, and that was to purchase an existing vessel quickly to
replace a vessel that sunk, never for a new build.
The same province has budgeted for tariffs on their new builds.
I will ask the minister: Why does he believe that the
federal government are going to waive the tariffs on these two new vessels when
they have never done it on new vessels of the same calibre, same size?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
BRAZIL:
Mr.
Speaker, my officials have been working very closely with the federal officials.
There is an application process that we are putting in place.
We are going through the process itself.
There is no reason to believe that the federal government would not
accept this as an exemption through tariffs.
There has already been a precedent set; BC Ferries have done it.
We feel we are in the same category, even a little bit stronger in our
argument to do that.
Mr. Speaker, we are very confident this will be done
and we will only charge the taxpayers of this Province for the ships that are
being delivered.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Carbonear – Harbour Grace.
MR.
SLADE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is very sad in the history of
Newfoundland and Labrador and the Town of Harbour Grace.
Kodiak shoes, after decades of operations in Harbour Grace, is closing
its doors for the last time today.
Eighty people are losing their jobs.
I ask the minister: What plans have government put into
place to help the displaced employees of this company as they see their
long-term employment come to an end?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the member for raising that very important
issue. Just this morning I actually
had a discussion with a couple of media outlets on it – and it is very
disappointing, I say to the member opposite.
For us, as a government, we are the government that brought the company
to the community. So we have been
there from day one. We recognize the
value and the contribution that company has made to the community.
We have been engaged with not only the company, but the
community, and officials in my department have been working hard to look at
other alternatives. I pledge to the
member that if there is any way whatsoever that we can bring another company to
the Town of Harbour Grace – who has been a great community to work in, by the
way, as the company tells – then we will do everything we can.
In the meantime, my colleague, through the Department
of Advanced Education and Skills, has a number of funding programs that we are
going to make available, if employees would like to avail of some retraining
opportunities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Carbonear – Harbour Grace.
MR.
SLADE:
Mr.
Speaker, the Town of Harbour Grace also loses today.
The tax benefits of having a major employer like Kodiak operating in the
town meant some $50,000 annual business tax to the community.
This, too, will come to an end today.
I ask the minister: How will government work with the
Town of Harbour Grace to help replace these lost revenues?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will just continue for a moment.
As I said to the member opposite, we do have funding programs available,
and I am sure he is aware, but I would remind people through Advanced Education
and Skills to those who would want to avail of an opportunity to retrain.
We have counselling services.
We were on the ground the day the announcement was made, by the way.
If the member becomes aware of a need to have further consultations, we
will make ourselves available.
With respect to the community, we are not aware at this
point that any request or any opportunity has been exercised by the community to
reach out to the minister. If there
is a discussion that is required, if the town is having some challenges as a
result of the tax loss or they want to talk about going forward what their
challenges are, we are more than willing to sit down and have a chat with them.
I invite them to open up a dialogue with us, or write a letter, send an
e-mail, or something like that. We
are certainly there to help out.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Mr.
Speaker, today marks the end of an era for Terra Nova Shoes.
In the media, the minister said the Department of Business is actively pursuing initiatives to attract new business.
Given
the poor track record of the Business Attraction Fund in the past, leaving 87
per cent of the funds on the table last year, I ask the minister what leads he
has for new business in Harbour Grace that matches the skills of the displaced
workers?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the opportunity. It is an
interesting question coming from the member who only yesterday was raising
concerns and questions with an announcement that we put forward to support the
business community and support opportunities like Harbour Grace has with a
venture capital fund, I say to the member opposite.
I
eagerly await a clear position from members opposite so that there is not a
contradiction between the leader and that member and Mr. Antle, the candidate
for St. John's East, as to where they stand with respect to venture capital, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KING:
This is a very serious issue.
We are talking about –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KING:
We are talking about –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
members for their co-operation. I
ask the minister to finish his answer.
The hon.
the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a
very serious issue and I appreciate the question.
I just want to remind the member of some of the commentary he made
yesterday.
We are
pursuing all kinds of opportunities for Terra Nova Shoes and the community of
Harbour Grace, Mr. Speaker. We will
continue to pursue those opportunities.
I mentioned the venture capital fund as one avenue we have to lure
business to the community. We have
many others, and if I have a follow-up question I would be more than happy to
elaborate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for The
Straits – White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, I certainly
support venture capital. It is the
contradiction in the amount of funding that is available in the fund that they
are putting forward.
Mr.
Speaker, the minister committed to also speak to representatives to find new
occupants for the facility.
Given
the competitive nature of the industry and the loss of equipment, I ask the
minister: Does he have a commitment from the company or will we see that
building mothballed?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, the difference
between where I stand as a minister and where my critic stands is that I am
prepared to lay my vision out on what we stand for in economic development and
economic diversification in this Province.
I invite the member at some point in time to share his view, but our view
of it is that it is our role, and it is my role as minister, to create an
environment that is conducive to economic growth.
We have
to support entrepreneurs. It is not
the role of government to create business.
There is not one business I can think of created by this government or
any other government in the history of this Province that has succeeded.
It is the businesses that have been created by entrepreneurs in
communities that are locally driven and locally developed, Mr. Speaker.
We will
work with the community. My previous
colleague in this department had officials from the town in.
We have invited them to share ideas.
If they have local ideas they want to pursue, we have funding
opportunities, funding programs, venture capital, all kinds of ways to support
them if they have the interest to move forward.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, government based
their budget on $105 oil. The price,
as of a few minutes ago, as a result of OPEC not reducing production, was $72.77
per barrel. That is a difference of
over $32 a barrel. Government's own
budget document says that a $1 drop equals a $26 million loss.
Simple math is, that is a potential loss of $832 million.
I ask
the minister: Based on today's announcement, how much larger will this year's
deficit be?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, I
acknowledge today, and I have said in the past, we would wait until OPEC had
their meeting today to be able to inform us as to what that might mean and what
kind of impact it may have on our budget.
Today,
what we had confirmed for us is that there is a tremendous amount of volatility.
We are going to see that volatility continue for the next little while.
It is one of the things that has become very apparent now, and all the
analysts are saying that we have a structural problem, both on the supply and
the demand side in the oil industry.
What we
are going to see in the next little while, I suspect – she just quoted $72,
analysts are saying for the next week to ten days we are going to see a lot of
movement. A lot of changes are going
to occur very quickly over the next seven to ten days.
Until that time, we will have a better feel for how this is going to
settle out and really impact our bottom line by March 31.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, last week I
asked the minister for the exact weighted average impact on the Province's
finances of the falling oil price, falling production, and Canadian dollar.
I understand what a weighted average is, and I am sure he does as well.
The people of the Province deserve to know if government will borrow
money, increasing the deficit, or cut programs and services.
I ask
the Premier: What is it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
What the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador truly deserve, Mr. Speaker, is clear leadership, clear
understanding of the impact. People
of Newfoundland and Labrador do not need fear mongering.
They do not need speculation about what might or might not happen.
We have
a responsibility to the people of this Province.
We have a responsibility to govern responsibly, to provide good, sound
fiscal management. Speculating about
what might or might not happen because changes occur in oil prices or exchange
rates would be somewhat irresponsible to the investment community.
What we
are going to do, Mr. Speaker, we are going to take a prudent approach.
When we see the volatilities start to change and a bit of settling occur
over the next week to ten days, we will tell the people of the Province very
clearly what we know and what we understand will be the impact on this
Province's fiscal performance and what our outlook will be for March 31, 2015
and into the next fiscal year, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters.
MS C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, what the people
of the Province deserve is the facts.
They want to know today what the financial impact of the current oil
price is on the provincial revenue.
They absolutely want to have a government they can trust to make decisions and
not expropriate things that end up costing us over $250 million in environmental
fees.
What we
have to do is to provide the facts to the people of the Province, and I ask the
minister to provide that information today.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can
tell you that the volatility of oil prices has a significant impact, a
potentially significant impact to our Province and to our government, and we are
quite aware of that. Members
opposite are quite aware of that.
I remind
the member opposite, I remind the members of the House, and I remind the people
of the Province that in the last two weeks we have been in the House, Opposition
members, knowing all of that and the potential impacts of the volatility of oil
prices, have day after day after day rose in their place in this House and have
asked us as a government to spend millions and millions of dollars.
Day after day after day, Mr. Speaker, we have heard it from members
opposite.
Mr.
Speaker, I can tell you that effective today, and we have only had a very short
period of time to see the outcome and the results of the OPEC, is that we have
taken a position that we are adding a new layer of approval for all hiring for
government departments and agencies, and that government departments hiring will
only be based on critical need for those departments.
As well, discretionary spending is being ceased effective immediately,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier's
answer leads nicely into my question.
With regard to the hiring of Ms Breen and Mr. Kennedy, government is now
agreeable that government employees who potentially may have a legal issue can
choose their own lawyer and have the taxpayer foot the bill.
This is what the minister said yesterday.
I ask
the Premier: Is this indeed your new policy?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I said quite
clearly and publicly when this matter arose earlier this week that the
circumstances are that. I have to be
very careful as well, I should say, because there is a matter before the courts
and I have to respect that process.
We all should respect that process.
We have
a circumstance where employees, who, as a result of the execution of their
duties as employees of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, require
legal advice. They require legal
advice. A union person, three
management people at Her Majesty's Penitentiary require union advice.
The union person has specifically asked to be represented by a specific
lawyer. We have granted that
request. The three management people
have asked for a specific lawyer and we have granted that request.
As I
said to the hon. member – sorry, as I have said publicly before, not directly to
the hon. member – if they ask for a particular person, I would be hard pressed
not to grant them the person they want to represent their own interests.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Premier: Will other employees, as a result of the execution of their duties,
also get Mr. Kennedy as their lawyer if they ask, and will it be paid for by the
government?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
happens from time to time where individuals require legal advice.
This is not a unique circumstance.
I have seen it in the past. I
have seen it happen over the years.
It happens from time to time, especially those who are engaged in their duties
such as people in policing and corrections.
It happens from time to time that this requirement exists, where they
require legal advice as an individual employee of government.
They need that advice and they have asked for that.
So we have granted their wishes, Mr. Speaker.
We
assess them on an individual basis, based on circumstances and the needs of
employees. We are here to protect
our employees, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we are doing in this case.
We have employees who require legal advice.
It is part of an ongoing court case, and we are protecting the best
interests of our own staff.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I thank the Premier, Mr.
Speaker, for elaborating on this new government policy.
In the House yesterday, we asked about this list of hundreds of instances
that happen on an almost daily basis where this has been done in the past and
the Minister of Tourism refused.
I ask
the Premier: Given that you have just discussed it, will you release that list
to us?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to
be clear, the Premier has not announced a new policy.
The member's preamble to the question indicates a new policy.
There is no new policy with respect to outside counsel representing
government workers.
There
are two particular occasions in 2013 and 2014.
Officials with Transportation and Works and wildlife officers also had
outside counsel for similar instances where there were some allegations of
criminal conduct and criminal wrongdoing, Mr. Speaker.
We have an obligation when that happens to support our employees.
I would hope the member is not suggesting that we should do otherwise and
not support our employees.
To his
question, I will gladly table the document, Mr. Speaker.
It is right here and the Clerk can come and accept it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, our office made
an ATIPP request to determine the sequence of events that led to Ms Manning's
appointment to be a review commissioner for workers' comp.
We were shut down by the Cabinet confidence section of Bill 29.
I ask
the minister: Can you please explain to us why Cabinet is involved in the
selection of review commissioners?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
member opposite would know that using Bill 29 as an excuse for every single
question that comes before this House is absolutely ludicrous.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that there are any number of
boards, agencies, commissioners, and appointments that happen on a regular basis
that are appointments of Cabinet.
I would
add, Mr. Speaker, that 95 per cent of those we inherited from the Liberal
government who established the protocol before we came to power.
There is nothing untoward about the fact that an appointment for this
government would have to go before Cabinet.
That is normal process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, our Cabinet is
not involved in the selection of judges in this Province yet.
Our Cabinet is using a secretive process to determine review
commissioners. Again, we have
serious issue in the backlog of cases.
I ask
the minister: What criteria have you been following, and why is this process not
transparent?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing
that is untoward about this process.
There is nothing out of the ordinary, there is nothing unusual.
From time to time we go seeking members to serve on boards, commissions,
and agencies. Mr. Speaker, it is a
normal part of doing business.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KING:
The member would know that,
Mr. Speaker, because it is the same process that governments before us used.
There is always criteria. In
most cases – by the way, I say to the member, you might want to check the
legislation of the particular board or agency because the process for these
appointments is actually enshrined in legislation in the Province right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, last week when I
asked about the backlog of 150 reviews at the workers' comp review division all
I heard is that government is working on the issue and we have fewer
unacceptable backlogs this year than last year.
I ask
the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador: Instead of we are working on
the problem, what specific steps are you taking to address the backlog?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CORNECT:
Mr. Speaker, I certainly want
to thank the hon. member across the way for his question.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have held meetings just this morning, had
discussions just this morning, Mr. Speaker, on how we move forward to find
solutions to the backlog.
The
Premier stated last week as well that he wants a solution found to the backlog,
Mr. Speaker. I say to the hon.
member that I am speaking with the chief review commissioner, and we will find a
solution and a way forward, Mr. Speaker, to relieving the backlog.
That I can assure the injured workers and employers of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, once again we
are hearing about how government is working on the problem, no specifics.
I ask
the minister: Given the fact that the workers' comp review division is funded by
workers' comp and requires no public expenditure, will you provide direction to
the review division to ensure proper resources are allocated in order to provide
justice for these injured workers?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CORNECT:
Mr. Speaker, thank you again
for the question.
As I
said earlier, Mr. Speaker, we are moving forward.
We are going to find a solution to the benefit of employers and injured
workers of the people of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl South for a very quick question.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Minister of Service NL: Why weren't audited statements collected from 43 per
cent of funeral homes which sold prepaid funerals in 2013?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL for a quick reply.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CORNECT:
Again, Mr. Speaker, Service
NL is a very large department with over 180 pieces of legislation.
We have competent staff in the department, and, Mr. Speaker, I am sure
they are doing their due diligence to carry out this work.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Once
again, it is the season of food drives for low-income families.
Food banks are reporting minimum wage earners whose paycheques do not
last two weeks, forcing them to the food bank.
Government and the Official Opposition both voted against the NDP motion
to follow the recommendations of the minimum wage review committee.
I ask
the Premier: Why won't this government follow its own committee's
recommendations, which would keep people from having to go to food banks?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Mr. Speaker, this government
has invested in a poverty reduction plan that has been applauded by people from
across this country. Since 2006, we
have invested $1.6 billion. Just
this morning I was at an event where we announced $678,000 through more
initiatives to support people who find themselves in difficult situations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to
the minister, people need money in their hands, therefore I ask the Premier: Why
government will not raise the minimum wage to catch up with inflation and index
it every year so working parents can feed their families?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Mr. Speaker, again, I would
ask the member if she would take a look at all the initiatives that have been
implemented over the years, the things we are putting into home repair programs, the things we are
piloting now to define initiatives to support people, seniors as they find
transportation. All the initiatives
that have been applauded by so many under our poverty reduction plan are, in
fact, putting money into pockets of people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
Mr.
Speaker, a media report today tells us that taxpayers in this Province may be
dinged by a $25 million federal tariff for ferries that are being built outside
the country, specifically in Romania.
This government claims openness and transparency.
Why won't the minister release the unsuccessful bids to
prove that government made a good deal for the taxpayer of this Province?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I mentioned earlier, we have a process in place that
outlines exactly getting the best service for the people in this Province.
The RFP process we used ensured we did that.
We are contracting Damen for $100 million to supply two vessels, state of
the art, for the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker.
Damen has outlined all the amenities they will provide
in that, the services, and the skill set that will be associated with that.
We are very confident this is what the people of this Province want.
We are getting a good bang for our dollar.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
Mr.
Speaker, that $25 million probably cost this Province part of a shipbuilding
industry here.
Does the minister have written confirmation from the
federal government saying that this tariff is going to be waived?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, for somebody who spent thirty-five years
fighting for a better ferry service in this Province, I can guarantee you what
we are receiving now for the people of this Province is second to none in this
country and second to none in this world.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
BRAZIL:
I
will guarantee you the money that is being spent is in the best interest of the
taxpayers of this Province. Mr.
Speaker, the tariffs that are being levied on this will be removed.
There will be no tariffs coming here; we are confident in that.
We are working very closely with the federal
government, Mr. Speaker. The people
will get the return on the investment.
The people serviced by ferries in this Province will benefit from that
and that means people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
As this Administration has done for the last number of years, we will
benefit from our investments.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR.
MURPHY:
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to know something.
We are talking about an extra $25 million on top of the taxpayer.
Why doesn't this government get it when it comes to a
shipbuilding policy in this Province and job creation?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR.
MURPHY:
We
want to know why this money is being thrown away on the part of the taxpayer and
why the federal government is taking a piece of us.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have committed to providing a valued service to the
people of this Province. We are
continuing to do that. Our $100
million investment this year alone will show that.
The investments prior to that show that.
The future investments are going to show that also, Mr. Speaker.
We have contracted a $100 million contract with Damen
Shipyards to provide those two vessels.
That is what it will cost the taxpayers of this Province, Mr. Speaker,
and they will get the return on that investment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The time for Question Period has expired.
MR.
KIRBY:
A
point of order.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's North, on a point of order.
MR.
KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
During Question Period, the Leader of the Third Party
stated that Members of the House of Assembly, the other parties, had voted
against the recommendations of the Minimum Wage Review Panel that somehow that
Third Party had put forward.
The Minimum Wage Review Panel recommended that six
months' notice be given to small businesses before any minimum way increase –
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I would ask the member to state his point of order.
MR.
KIRBY:
I
am getting to it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is no point of order.
Presenting Report by Standing and Select Committees.
MR.
KIRBY:
(Inaudible) give me an opportunity to finish.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I say to the hon. member, even though you were not
recognized to speak, the Speaker can still hear what you say from the floor.
What you just did was challenge the Speaker's ruling.
I would ask the member to apologize and to apologize unequivocally.
MR.
KIRBY:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I apologize unequivocally.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, in a back and forth between myself and the
Opposition House Leader, we had a discussion around contracts, contract
templates that government often uses when it employs outside counsel.
First of all, I would like to table a document.
This one would be a retention letter as we call it.
It is a short version that is often used in a case where counsel is
provided to support employees, as is the case we have been discussing in the
Legislature for a few days now. If
the Clerk would like to accept, I would like to table that document.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I also have a second, much longer
document. Similar, it is a retention
letter intended to confirm the retention and provide confirmation of
government's liability for fees incurred.
This document I would also like to table, Mr. Speaker.
As I said, to be clear for the record, these are
templates that I referenced yesterday in Question Period that I am now tabling
before the House.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
Pursuant to section 8 and section 10 of the Public
Tender Act, I hereby table reports of Public Tender Act exceptions for the
months of July, August, and September 2014, as presented by the Chief Operating
Officer of the Government Purchasing Agency.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act, 2008, Bill 32.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MR.
WISEMAN:
I
give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act
Respecting The Atlantic Provinces Harness Racing Commission, Bill 33.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
MR.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today on the petition concerning the hospital in
Corner Brook.
WHEREAS we wish to raise concerns regarding the recent
delay of the construction of the new hospital in Corner Brook, Newfoundland and
Labrador;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the government to commit to the
planning and construction of a new hospital in Corner Brook as previously
committed to and in a timely manner as originally announced without further
delay or changes.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Health
and Community Services met with the health care committee this weekend.
They mentioned that the meeting was very positive, that there was an open
dialogue back and forth, that there will be information shared from the minister
and there will be information from the health care committee.
I encourage that dialogue.
That is one of the things that the health care committee was pushing for
was information sharing so they can inform the people of Western Newfoundland
and Labrador, the people who are working as volunteers, as citizens, that they
could help to provide information.
Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the meeting.
As I said to the health care committee if there is information coming
back and forth, the commitment was that the long-term care building will start
in 2015, that the actual acute care hospital will start in 2016, if there are
any changes to that the committee will be notified.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to stand here today to inform
the people of Western Newfoundland and Labrador that according to the health
care committee the meeting was positive.
I just want to offer if there is anything that I can do to help and
facilitate this process, I will certainly do.
I will help in whatever way I can to help this process along.
As I
told the health care committee, I will work with the committee and the people of
Western Newfoundland to ensure we get the facility we were committed to and get
the facility in a timely manner. I
just wanted to recognize that.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Carbonear – Harbour Grace.
MR. SLADE:
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
the local service district of Freshwater, Carbonear is expressing ongoing
concern regarding the need to make repairs to the beach breakwater which has
been severely damaged by storm waves and this has caused major concerns for the
local service district of Freshwater as it pertains to fire protection and
safety; and
WHEREAS
this lack of repair by government constitutes a fire and safety hazard to the
community since the residents will be trapped in if a fire ever took place; and
WHEREAS
this damaged breakwater roadway is also creating an environmental concern as the
Atlantic Ocean has washed in over the roadway and out into the fresh water pond
where the fish are in the pond; and
WHEREAS
this area serves as a capelin run area each year which attracts a great many
locals and tourists to the site; and
WHEREAS
the federal government refuses to assist with this repair as they deem there is
no associated fishing activity to justify investment;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to respond to the pleas from the community
residents and their legislative representative to have this breakwater structure
repaired so it can once again properly protect the road infrastructure from
being more severely damaged and once done, to call upon government to repair the
road.
As in
duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I am after bringing this here quite a few times.
I did speak with the Minister of the Department of Transportation
yesterday and he assured me that he is going to be out in the area within the
next week or two and have a look at that.
I would certainly appreciate the minister doing that.
Having
said that, Mr. Speaker, my biggest concern as the MHA for the Carbonear –
Harbour Grace district is the safety of the people at all times.
Mr. Speaker, this is a real safety concern.
It is one that I am going to stand in the House and speak about day after
day until something gets done here.
We are forty-eight districts in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker,
forty-eight districts, and one district should not be treated any different than
the other. I will tell you, what is
going on here is absolute neglect to the people of that community and also the
people in the community of Bristol's Hope.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, 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, 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 of 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 am yet standing again in this House to talk about this petition.
Petitions keep coming to my office day after day after day.
As well as the petitions, I get copies of letters that different groups
across the Province have written to the Premier, or have written to the Minister
of Justice, again urging government to reinstate the Family Violence
Intervention Court immediately, as well as to expand it.
Mr.
Speaker, I am beginning to wonder, who is responsible at this point?
Who is responsible for the pain and the suffering of families who would
have used the Family Violence Intervention Court, but who have not been able to
because it was closed so rashly in the Budget of 2013-2014.
Who is going to take responsibility for that?
Mr.
Speaker, we can talk theoretically about the court.
We can talk philosophically about the court.
We can talk politically about the court.
We can try and understand why it was closed.
We can try and understand why it is not open, why it has not been opened
immediately when there has been such an incredible lobby to government to open
that court. Who is going to take
responsibility for the fallout to the families who have not been able to use the
court, and particularly because the court was closed for no good reason?
Who is going to take that responsibility?
Mr.
Speaker, I have a letter here from the Canadian Federation of University Women.
The Canadian Federation of University Women are also urging for the court
to be reinstated.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for The
Straits – White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We, the
citizens serviced by Curtis Hospital located in St. Anthony, Newfoundland and
Labrador, petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Labrador
Grenfell Health to retain midwives and allow them to continue to perform all of
their duties at Curtis Hospital.
Our
midwives offer services that cannot be duplicated and which cannot be replaced.
The level of care they offer and the knowledge and training they have in
the area of obstetrics is immense.
It will be a great disservice to the people of this area if our midwives are no
longer available to care for the people here.
Privatizing midwifery or waiting five to seven years for regulation, as
stated by government, is unacceptable.
We have an operational model of midwifery here in St. Anthony that has
been delivering outstanding care for over ninety years.
We
implore upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador and Labrador Grenfell Health to preserve midwifery services at Curtis
Memorial Hospital.
Mr.
Speaker, this is something that has been working quite well for decades.
In terms of providing good continuity of care, all of the other services
that provide a relationship with the mother or family members while they are
going through the process of having a baby, through delivery and then after.
We have
many situations and circumstances in Newfoundland and Labrador where midwives
could be utilized. For example, like
Stephenville and that whole Port au Port area, if somebody needs to have a baby
then they are going to be sent on an ambulance to Corner Brook, but if we had
midwives and the profession was regulated, this is a way in which we could
provide better health care services to people by having midwives in a regulated
profession.
I say,
Mr. Speaker, the announcement that the former Minister of Health made shows
where this government is in putting privatization of midwifery ahead of offering
midwifery in a publicly funded atmosphere which has been working functionally at
Labrador Grenfell Health for quite some time.
It is time to go back to the drawing board and move forward on this
issue, Mr. Speaker.
I urge
the House to support this because it is something that certainly can provide
better health outcomes for people, especially in rural areas.
My district in particular, and in Southern Labrador, has seen the
benefits of what midwives can deliver.
They are a very vital part of the health care team.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
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 lack of services and supports in the school system is a serious obstacle to
learning for children and youth with autism spectrum disorder; and
WHEREAS
long wait-lists for pediatric assessment and diagnostic services are preventing
many children with autism spectrum disorder from receiving needed early
diagnosis; and
WHEREAS
the Intensive Applied Behavioural Analysis Program is currently not available
for children after Grade 3; and
WHEREAS
applied behavioural analysis has been shown to be effective for many adults
beyond Grade 3; and
WHEREAS
there is a lack of supports and services for children and youth with autism
spectrum disorder after they age out of the Intensive Applied Behavioural
Analysis Program; and
WHEREAS
it is unacceptable to expect parents in Newfoundland and Labrador to pay
thousands of dollars out of their own pockets to cover the cost of privately
delivered applied behavioural analysis after Grade 3;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to extend eligibility for Intensive Applied
Behavioural Analysis Program beyond Grade 3 in consultation with parents,
advocates, educators, health care providers, and experts in the autism
community.
As in
duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, today the Premier got up in the House of Assembly and somehow implied
that it is a great burden on government to ask for a basic health or educational
service such as this to be covered.
No one would be recommending – I would be very surprised if I heard the Premier
out calling for people to pay for their children to go to Grade 1 and go to
school. I would be very surprised if
I heard the Premier out saying that people who need a medically necessary
procedure done should have to pay that out of their own pockets.
The
Premier has no problem allowing this to continue to go on.
As I said a number of times I have constituents, and other Members of the
House of Assembly have constituents, who have to pay out of their own pockets
just because their children go on to Grade 4.
They are not allowed to have intensive applied behavioural analysis
covered after Grade 3.
It is a
completely arbitrary cut off. There
is absolutely no academic, medical, or scientific evidence to suggest that
actually makes any sense. Somebody
just said at some point, look, we are being pressured to provide this so let's
extend it out to Grade 3. It is
completely wrong.
If you
cannot have a universal system, then why not try having a means-tested system so
that people who are on Income Support, people who are below the poverty line,
people who have children and cannot afford to have that ABA therapy, can get it.
Maybe some people can, I do not know, but let's try to do something to
help the most vulnerable people in our communities ensure their children can get
this. This is really the difference
between having a job, being able to complete school or not.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the member his speaking time has expired.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
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
Labrador's coastal communities already pay extremely high hydro rates; and
WHEREAS
small businesses are struggling to stay in operation against rising costs of
operation; and
WHEREAS
Nalcor, the Crown corporation, is proposing an 11.4 per cent increase to
residential hydro rates and a 20 per cent increase to business rates;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to work with
Nalcor to establish rates that are fair and consistent to the whole Province.
As in
duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I spoke on this petition last week and I had some forwarding comments
from the Minister of Natural Resources.
It made for a healthy debate, and I respect the minister for his
comments. I would like to go on with
a couple of topics that I did not talk about last week.
We look at the hydro rate proposals that are going to the PUB.
In some areas in our Province it is 1.9 per cent.
Some areas in our Province, it goes as high as 2.9 per cent, Mr. Speaker.
In
coastal Labrador, which I said as I started out this petition, communities are
already paying extremely high hydro rates.
The proposed increase is 11.4 per cent for residential customers and a
staggering 20 per cent for commercial operations.
You look at some of the reasons why these costs have been going up; the
price of oil is one of the reasons why this increase is going to the PUB, as
proposed by Nalcor.
As I
said last week, Mr. Speaker, prices have gone down.
As a matter of fact they have gone down even more.
So I fail to see where the argument is, but what I am seeing is you have
the generation station out in Holyrood that is millions of dollars potentially
and months potentially behind schedule.
You have $800 million cost overrun at Muskrat Falls in the first quarter
and we are looking at more.
We look
at where some of these costs are coming from, but I maintain by the petitioners
that this government work with Nalcor to establish rates that are fairer and
across the board as opposed to regionalized, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 2, second reading of a bill, An Act To Regulate
Child Care Services, Bill 30.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess
I will pick up where I left off the last legislative day as we were discussing
this bill. Members on both sides of
the House have gotten up and we have gone through.
I guess before I go any further, we need to do a little bit of recap.
I am speaking on Bill 30, An Act to Regulate Child Care Services.
It is a bill to replace or repeal a bill that was brought forward in
1999, as a matter of fact, fifteen years ago.
The
previous speakers – the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development
had spoken and clearly outlined basically what was in the bill.
She certainly referred to the enhanced quality this bill would ensure and
made the distinction that this bill was about one of the three pillars, the
three pillars in child care, being quality, sufficiency, and affordability.
This bill certainly hits on the quality piece and making sure that what
is happening in the child care spaces throughout Newfoundland and Labrador are
indeed in the best interests of the children which these spaces will serve.
Having
said that, Mr. Speaker, and we look at the quality piece, this bill still goes
hand in hand with the 10-Year Child Care Strategy, that was also described, and
Caring For Our Future: Provincial Strategy for Quality, Sufficient and
Affordable Child Care in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, that strategy was releases some three years ago.
That really set the course in child care for the next ten years with –
not an expiry date, but a date of 2022 whereby we feel, as a government, this
strategy will bring us up to the needs that are certainly evident as we have
gone around the Province and touched base with the people who are most involved
in child care spaces in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I will
say, Mr. Speaker, these are regulated child care spaces.
Of course, there were six major changes to the bill, the bill being
repealed. We are almost starting
from scratch, Mr. Speaker, but just to go down through those as well, the
exemptions were, point number 1, to licensing, and it certainly looked at the
capacity, an appeals process, provincial director of child care, an inspection
process, and a statutory review every five years.
Mr.
Speaker, the bill is pretty well straightforward, but a very important piece of
legislation. I am probably the
fourth speaker up, and I will say there was a lively debate as the various
members in the House stood up and talked about the bill.
I feel there is great acceptance on both sides of the House of the intent
of this bill and how it is laid out.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, when you open a bill that talks about the quality of the
child care spaces, you will get some discussion and discourse as well on the
sufficient number of child care spaces that are required, the sufficiency, and
also the affordability and accessibility.
Mr.
Speaker, I will pick up there and just go back over some of the comments that
were made. I do not want to
duplicate the comments, but I must say, I feel very comfortable knowing that the
speakers were very knowledgeable about the bill, what changes were brought
about, and I might add very, very supportive.
That support is absolutely necessary.
The
Member for St. John's North, for example, went down through the bill in a very
critical style, going through every piece of it.
I just stood on this side and looked down through it, and I found he was
ticking off a lot of the same things that I had ticked off.
First of
all, the repeal of the act itself.
There was general agreement of all speakers, Mr. Speaker, that the bill needed
to be repealed, and that it was simply repealing an act.
Many agreed that the act of 1999, Mr. Speaker, was a good act.
It suited the times. It made
acknowledgement of how important it was to ensure that the children in anyone's
charge was indeed quality spaces, that the people who were taking care of our
children had some degree of training.
There has been tremendous changes in this Province over the last fifteen
years, especially over the last decade.
The Province has literally turned around.
Mr.
Speaker, I just speak from my own experience in my own District of Harbour Main,
that I have seen now – back when I entered this House as a member back in 1999,
there was a concern that there was a generation that had been lost in the 1990s
as people had moved away. The number
of children who were being born in this Province had drastically dropped.
There
was a danger that some of our schools were not surviving simply because the
numbers were not there, some of these small schools in some of our rural areas
and some of our more urban areas, but things have turned around.
I notice now in my own district that our schools are bursting at the
seams; whereas, like I said, fifteen years ago it was the complete opposite.
I have now in my district young couples, families moving back into the
district. Not only are they moving
back in, but they are getting really great employment in the immediate area.
When we
look at this bill, we know the demand for regulated child care is continuing to
rise and will continue to rise. It
is very, very important that we allow the providers of child care – and that is
a second aspect of the bill. It was
to make sure that when it came to the facilities that are available, the
situations that our regulators find themselves in, that they can have the
capacity, and not only have the capacity, but be able to build on perhaps the
capacity they have right now.
There
was a cap, I believe, of sixty that you could have under any one particular
licence. We found in some of the
places here in St. John's, like over at the MUN campus, that in actual fact the
building was supporting I think something like four licences when, in actual
fact, it would probably make more sense if it was all under the one licence.
During
the consultations – and there were extensive consultations – we got a good
response from the people we needed to get a response from, whether they were
service providers, whether they were parents, whether they were just interested
parties. One of the things they said
is that capacity is important.
Already you see where people have really stretched the regulations to make sure
they could have capacity. As well,
the aspect of when you have any sort of bill coming forward, providing for
inspections and so on and so forth, which we did not have before.
We have
a provincial director now who is going to be appointed by the minister, which
allows that to be facilitated very, very quickly rather than an Order in
Council. We have inspectors who are
going to be totally independent, which is absolutely necessary, and we have an
appeals process. That was not there
before.
The
appeals process; I know some of the members brought it up saying, well, it is
all right to put it on paper but is it actually going to happen?
They cited some other examples, perhaps in the courts or some other
departments. Remember, when we are
talking about this particular bill and we are talking about the quality of the
spaces, it is very obvious to all that it is pretty well straightforward.
You are over capacity, you do not have the right areas, you do not have
the right type of buildings, and that sort of thing.
The appeals process would be pretty straightforward.
It can be done very quickly, and a response gone back.
If you
are dealing with some other matters, such as criminal offences or injuries and
that sort of thing, those are much more complex and oftentimes get bogged down
simply because of different aspects of it, reports not in and so forth, but this
is about our child care and inspectors going in, looking at the child care
spaces, and can very quickly point out whether or not they are in compliance.
If they are not in compliance, for the protection of the children and
everything it – so the appeal process should work fine.
The
others I believe – the statutory review.
That is a common thing in legislation, as you know.
The statutory review was put in there because it was not in the original
one, and really went fifteen years without a formal review.
We all know, and we have seen – as a matter of fact, if we see something
that needs to be changed, whether it is us in government or anyone in
government, whether it is our stakeholders or parents or whatever, we can make
amendments and bring it back into this House and change it.
I am to
understand that you may very well see an amendment upcoming that may indeed
point to the fact that we are always ready, as a government, to make any
necessary changes, to put in place regulations or whatever that is necessary to
ensure our child care spaces are indeed adequate.
My time
is ticking away there, but I will say, as well, these are regulated child care
spaces. We also have to take into
account the culture here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I am very pleased to say that in my district I still see a lot of family
involvement in child care. As a
recent grandparent, I realize there are many, many grandparents in this Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador who are very much involved in taking care of their
grandchildren.
So when
we talk about the numbers and that sort of thing, I still believe there are a
lot of child care spaces where children are protected, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, but again, it is taking place in their very own homes.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and give others an opportunity to speak on
this very important bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
very happy to stand and speak to Bill 30, the Child Care Services Act.
Mr. Speaker, part of that also is I cannot believe in 2014 that I need to
stand and speak, yet again, on a child care issue.
In 1975,
that is almost forty years ago, thirty-nine years ago, we had the Royal
Commission on the Status of Women and one of the issues we identified as crucial
in the lives of working families in the country was the issue of child care.
This is what we are speaking about again today.
We
presented why child care, why public child care, why affordable, universal,
accessible, high-quality child care was so important for the working families of
the Province. We did the research.
We spoke about it and we thought all we had to do was be reasonable.
We presented it in a very reasonable and very clear and concise manner.
Here we are, almost forty years later, and we are still talking about
trying to have a public, affordable, accessible, high-quality child care
program. Here we are almost forty
years later.
So in
some ways I am happy to be able to be in this House, as a woman, to stand and
talk about this issue, but I am also incredibly dismayed that almost forty years
later we are still talking about it.
Maybe we have made a few gains, but, Mr. Speaker, we are nowhere near where we
need to be.
If we
look at some of the issues of child care in the country, child care is one of
the social determinants – affordable housing and child care are each really
fundamental social determinants of whether or not a working family get pushed
into poverty.
In
Quebec, for instance, 6 per cent of a woman's wage is spent on child care; in
Winnipeg, 15 per cent of a woman's wage is spent on child care; in Calgary, 26
per cent of a woman's wage, a working mom, is spent on child care; in St.
John's, Newfoundland, in our Province, 32 per cent of a working woman's wage is
spent on child care.
Mr.
Speaker, I was in Stephenville a few months ago and I was going door to door.
Within a period of two days, I encountered three young working moms who
each had left work, who had to quit work within that period of a week – three
within a period of a week had quit their employment because they could not
afford child care.
What
does that mean to us as a society?
It means that these young working moms had to rely on social safety nets; it
means that these young working moms who wanted to be in the workforce could not.
What does that mean for them down the road?
It means that they suffer in terms of lack of seniority in their
workplace; it means also they suffer in terms of financial well-being for their
families because we know that Income Support is not enough to live on.
Child care is such a fundamental issue in terms of keeping people out of
poverty.
The
Quebec model, as we have seen it, has been the most affordable for working
families at about $7.30 a day and serves 70 per cent of children under the
school age in their province. Quebec
built a huge infrastructure, a child care infrastructure that was absolutely
resilient and it was able to serve 70 per cent of the children.
Their child care program was top of the line in terms of quality.
It was part of their educational system and it still is.
It also
provided emergency services for children up to twelve years old.
If a child had to leave school early for some reason, then that child was
able to avail of the child care services.
Or if a parent was not able to pick up the child after school, then that
child could avail of the child care services.
It was extremely flexible because it met the needs of the modern-day
family. That is what we need to look
at here, Mr. Speaker, in our own Province.
What are the needs of our working families?
One of
the members across the floor talked about how grandparents are involved in child
care. That is fabulous.
That is absolutely fabulous if you have that option, if you have that
luxury. However, I have also spoken
to grandparents who are worn out.
Their working children cannot afford child care because we know in Newfoundland
and Labrador for the most part child care is approximately $1,000 a month per
child. That is a heck of a lot of
money. If you have two children,
that is probably $2,000, or maybe, if you get a bit of a discount, it is $1600.
If you
are a young working family with young children, you have a mortgage or rent –
and we know that the housing costs have skyrocketed in our Province.
You have your rent which is at least $1,200 a month minimum or maybe you
have a mortgage of $2,000 a month minimum.
Then you have your heat and light on top of that and phone and cable,
probably a car payment. When you
have children, your expenses rise.
Then you have child care costs of $1,000 to $2,000 a month.
It is not sustainable.
We know,
the research has shown us, that our children are losing ground financially.
A lot of our young people or a lot of our young working people are living
on credit cards. They also maybe
have a car payment because you have to get around.
You have kids; you need to be able to move those kids around as well.
It is really tough. Child
care is one of the fundamental pieces that are able to keep families out of
poverty, and able to keep families working.
When we
look at the Quebec model, and there has been some discussion about whether the
Quebec model will be sustainable, for the most part the people of Quebec believe
it will be and that it is absolutely necessary, and we have seen the economic
benefits of the Quebec model. We
know that what has happened, the aims of the Quebec model were to make their
children more successful in their education through better quality of care,
through better educational opportunities.
School
tests were done before their universal, accessible, affordable child care
program. Children in Quebec before
1976 used to have the lowest school marks in the country, and now they have the
highest scores in the whole country.
That is an incredible shift, Mr. Speaker.
That
shift then also translates into not the fact that they have better school marks,
but it also means they have a higher percentage of young women going into
post-secondary education. They have,
as a result of this, an increased number of women in the paid labour market.
Another interesting thing, which I think is vital here for us in
Newfoundland and Labrador, because how much have we looked at the whole issue of
our zero population growth, that a true population growth strategy for the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would be national child care –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I would
ask the member to make her comments relevant to the principle of the bill.
I know the member is talking about child care generally, but the piece of
legislation we are debating today is about the regulation of child care
services, and I would ask her to confine her comments to the principle of the
bill.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
So,
speaking to the bill and the Child Care Services Act, it is about how we are
able to make our child care services more accessible, more inclusive, and more
affordable, that we ensure there is also enough spaces, because we know we do
not have enough spaces for the number of children who need child care for the
number of working families we have.
We know
– Mr. Speaker, I do have to try to sneak this one in – that one of the benefits,
one of the absolute benefits that Quebec had was because of their great child
care, because people can afford child care –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I will
ask again that the member would make her comments relevant to the principle of
the bill which we are debating now.
That is a second warning, and if the member continues to be irrelevant, I will
have no other choice but to not recognize her any longer.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
We know
in the bill that a legislative review was stipulated in the Child Care Strategy
from 2012-2022, under the pillar of quality.
The other pillars in our bill are sufficiency and affordability.
We know that if our families have accessible, quality, and sufficient
number of spaces that it enables our young working families to be assured that
their children are cared for, which enables them to get about the business of
working, of being productive in our society.
We know,
Mr. Speaker, in terms of the whole issue of affordability that – I was speaking
to one woman who said that in her working career she paid out $96,000 for child
care. The whole pillar of
affordability is so important and one that we have to look at and one that is
very important in this bill.
With the
processes that are outlined in here, again, we are trying to ensure that we have
enough spaces, that the spaces are inclusive, that all children have access –
all children – and that the legislation as well looks at: What are the services
that are needed? How can government
most ensure child care providers have the guidelines they need in order to
provide the service, that they have the services they need in order to provide
those services, and that we know exactly what is needed in order to provide a
comprehensive service that is affordable, sufficient, and quality for the people
of the Province and for the children of the Province?
One of
the reasons, Mr. Speaker, is that we need that clarity and we need that
transparency so our families are not scrambling because what we have seen is
that people scramble. Obtaining
affordable, quality child care is so difficult for families and there are not
enough places.
Hopefully what this bill will do is make it possible for more providers because
we know that we need more providers.
At this point, a lot of the providers are private.
We do have more community-based providers.
We want to ensure with this bill that the services are all delivered in
the same way, that any parent going to any child care facility, whether it is a
home-based child care facility, whether it is a community-based child care
facility, whether at this point it is a for-profit child care facility, that
families want to know that their children are getting the best of care, quality
care, that they can go to work with a sense of confidence because of the type of
legislation we have, because of the foundation of what our child care system is
based on, they can go to work knowing their children are well taken care of;
knowing their children are not just warehoused but, in fact, this is part of an
early childhood education process.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to point out perhaps one of the groups most influential in
our Province around the area of helping government come to a strategy for child
care is the Jimmy Pratt Foundation.
They wrote a report I know the minister is very familiar with.
I know there has been a really good working relationship between
government and the Jimmy Pratt Foundation, coming up with the types of
guidelines and legislation that will ensure we have that type of quality child
care. Their report was The Early
Years Last A Lifetime.
I tell
you, Mr. Speaker, for so many families trying to access affordable, quality
child care, the early years sure seem to last a lifetime.
Not only does it last a lifetime in terms of what they are saying, how it
affects our children, but it feels like it is lasting a lifetime because it is
so difficult, it is so expensive, and it is so inaccessible.
Again, families have to scramble to get affordable quality child care.
Mr.
Speaker, I am glad government is moving forward on some of these issues and the
commitment to review legislation every five years because I sure hope that we
will be moving even further than where we are in our child care strategy here in
the Province because it is not far enough.
We know we need a fully public child care program that is an extension of
our education system, that it is about our early childhood education, and we
need that. This is just another
stepping stone in reaching that. Mr.
Speaker, I have every confidence we are going to be able to get there as a
Province. We know we need the
federal government on board.
I was
just slipped a little note and told that, in fact, the Royal Commission on the
Status of Women was 1970. It was not
1975 as I had thought. That adds on
another five years. That is almost
forty-five years that we have been talking in a solid, comprehensive way about
child care. That is what we need to
continue to do. We need to continue
to talk about this issue in our Province.
We have to know that although there are some very good elements here in
this bill that we can support, it is only a halfway measure.
We have to.
We have
to have a model similar to Quebec so that our young families are no longer
scrambling for child care.
Grandparents cannot do it, and a lot of people do not have grandparents to do
it. We do need these types of child
care services that are outlined here in this bill.
We know
that it is a better outcome for our children.
We know that it is a better outcome for our working families.
We know it is on the right road, but we are not there.
We have only just begun that journey here in this Province.
We do not yet even know what our full-day Kindergarten is going to look
like.
The term
that the early years lasts a lifetime, for working families who are just able to
meet their bills because of the high cost of housing, the high cost of child
care, student loans, car payments, it feels like a lifetime to them.
It feels like a lifetime to them because it is so tough.
How
unfortunate in this time of prosperity in our Province, how many young working
families have said to me, I cannot have another child.
I can only afford one. We
simply cannot. How unfortunate is
that, Mr. Speaker? I do not think
anybody in this House does not want to see another child not born because people
cannot afford it.
Mr.
Speaker, this bill is about that.
This bill is so intricately connected to our whole issue of population growth.
It is about providing services.
It is about providing quality, affordable child care to every working
family who needs it and every child who needs it.
That is what we are talking about today.
I hope
that government will acknowledge that this is just a step in the right
direction, but we have not arrived.
We so need to arrive. This would be
the best Population Growth Strategy that this Province could ever come up with
to ensure that we have a national child care program where there is a space for
every child of every working family, and also, even families who do not have
paid employment – but there is a space for every child in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador to have access to quality child care.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am very
happy to be able to speak to this bill.
MR. SPEAKER (Cross):
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MCGRATH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to be able to stand in this hon. House today and speak to
Bill 30, An Act To Regulate Child Care Services.
As we
know, this bill – I have listened to many of the speakers who have already stood
and debated this – is all about enhancing the regulated child care system that
we are dealing with. I heard some of
the speakers talk about when the original act was brought it, and it is fifteen
years old. When you look at the
demographics of what has happened in our Province in the last fifteen years and
how that affects child care – I myself coming from a very large family of
eleven children, we did not have to worry about babysitters.
They were built in in the family.
Today, as you heard some of the speakers comment on,
families are much smaller. Also,
today it is not uncommon at all in two-parent families to see both parents in
professional fields. A very common
thing today is single-parent families.
Twenty years ago to see a single-parent family was an uncommon thing.
It is not uncommon today at all.
This all has an effect on the child care system that we deal with.
This bill is all about enhancing that child care system to come up to
what the needs are for today.
I think in the bill it is very self-explanatory.
There are six key differences in the new act that we are suggesting.
First of all, there are the definitions of child care service and child
care provider. This is clarified and
strengthened in the new regulations, or the new act.
The capacity limit on the regulated child care licence, that is being
removed now and licensees to determine the scope of their service.
That will impact the quality of the service for the children.
The third one is the appeals process for a licensing
decision. That is being defined now
where there are time limits put on it also.
You get thirty days to put in an appeal, and then it has to be responded
to within sixty days. We would like
to see the responses much faster, but having that time limit on there I think is
an improvement.
The minister now, rather than the Cabinet, will appoint the
provincial director of child care.
The regional managers will not be appointed as inspectors.
Before, the regional managers, I do not know
if they were appointed as inspectors but there certainly was an anticipation
there that it was, or a perception.
This will provide some transparency in the inspection process.
Also,
the statutory review, which I think every speaker who has been up so far has
commended on the fact that now a statutory review will be required every five
year. That will also include public
consultation. Now what we are doing
is every five years this will go under review.
The part of the public consultation I think is very important because
then you are finding out exactly what the general public are looking for in the
child are regulations. Their
comments, I feel through public consultation, will only strengthen the
regulations and the act from that.
The
changes to this piece of legislation from the current act, there are four main
goals we are hoping to achieve. The
first one, the new legislation will modernize, strengthen, and clarify the
current legislation. The second one
is that it will streamline policies and processes.
Thirdly, it will improve transparency and accountability.
The forth one is it will improve flexibility for service providers.
I would just like to elaborate a little bit on those.
First of
all, modernization, strengthening, and clarification of the current legislation;
as I stated earlier, it has been fifteen years since the last review of the
legislation. This here now, we were
hoping to see some changes that would modernize it over the last decade and a
half, to go along with the changes that the economy has brought over the last
decade and a half. Over the last
fifteen years we have seen a lot of changes in the way our economy has moved
ahead and in the working habits of the general populace of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
For
example, in my district, I will use my district as an example.
We have recently seen one child care centre close down.
We have another one that was actually subsidized by one of the larger
industries in the area, and we cannot get it open.
Hopefully, the changes that are being made here may see some subsidies
and changes that will bring to light the opportunities to get these centres up
and running again, or the one that did not get the opportunity to open, now with
the changes we may be able to see that be able to be opened.
In many
districts throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, jurisdictions and the
municipalities, you are seeing parents – as I stated earlier, normally both
parents are working, and they are not working just eight-hour shifts now.
A normal shift in today's world, with the economy the way it is, is a
twelve-hour shift. As we know, and I
know it is a big issue in my district when it comes to child care, an employer
can force an employee to work consecutively sixteen hours.
That causes a lot of issues when it comes to child care.
Some of these changes we are going to see hopefully will reflect on that.
The
current Child Care Services Act was proclaimed in 1999.
I mentioned that earlier. The
new bill is being restructured to reflect current knowledge in the child care
field. Basically bringing people and
making them more knowledgeable as to what child care is all about today will
enhance the type of child care we are going to provide throughout the
jurisdictions.
I see
quite often that the child care providers are restricted on getting employees in
their centres quite often. As you
have heard other speakers talk about, we do not have the large families any
more. We are having smaller
families. A large family in today's
world is four children. Quite often
those four children are spaced, so finding the in-house child care is very
difficult today. Being able to
increase the knowledge when it comes to child care in the field today is what
the first goal, or part of the first main goal in this new act, will be.
The
second one is streamlined policies and processes.
The policies that we currently find today are a number of standards and
other documents. What we are going
to try to do is bring it all under one so it will be simplified.
There will be much more clarity into it, and easier to understand.
When you have policies and procedures that are easier to understand, they
are also easier to implement into your business.
If we
can bring all of them under one umbrella, that will make a big difference there.
The changes in our legislation will support the consolidation and the
reorganization of all this information making it much easier for use.
For example, if you are in the child care provider system and you are
doing the different levels of courses that can be done to move you forward, we
are going to try to simplify the regulations, bring them all together so that it
is easier to implement out in the field today.
Thirdly,
improving transparency and accountability, an appeals process is clearly
outlined; I spoke of that earlier.
This was not in the current act, so putting that appeals process in there and
the statute of times on that, the thirty days and the sixty days, I think is a
positive step forward.
Transparency to the process and the obligations and expectations for both
parties – defining those transparencies in the process is very important and
understanding the definitions of the transparencies.
I think we need to be able to understand what the processes are all about
and what the obligations and expectations on both sides, both the parents and
the child care givers, and making that clear.
Currently, eight provinces and territories have an appeals process so we have
certainly studied and looked at other jurisdictions across the country.
There are eight other provinces that already have an appeals process in
place; some of those being New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, which we have
looked very closely at. We will take
their processes and their appeals process and help that to strengthen the
appeals process that we will put in place.
Another
change will be to improve the transparency and the accountability of the
inspection process. The new act will
require that a manager is not appointed as an inspector.
This is important so you have an arm's-length inspector rather than the
manager being the inspector, which I think puts a safeguard onto the child care
establishments.
Also, as
you heard many of the other speakers talk about, the five-year review of the
legislation. If you have a piece of
legislation that is fifteen years old and it has not been changed, has not been
reviewed, but the demographics and the economy have changed, as we have
certainly seen here in our Province, so a piece of legislation that is fifteen
years old when it comes to child care certainly needs to be reviewed.
I think that putting the five-year automatic review on it is a very good
step. That gives you an opportunity
then that every five years you modernize what has been happening.
The
fourth one is improving the flexibility for the service providers.
By removing the capacity limit on a licence, what we are allowing is for
the owners to be more flexible when it comes to the service they will provide.
They can now have much more flexibility in determining what type of
service they are going to provide.
It will also ensure quality service with the requirements when it comes to the
ratios that are used, the sizes of the different groups, staff qualifications
and certainly the physical space requirements.
I
mentioned earlier that there was one facility in my district, which was a child
care provider, that had to close.
This fourth piece, change and a goal that we are hoping to accomplish here –
that one in itself, had that been there and you could obtain that goal alone,
that particular child care service centre would still be open in my district
just in that one alone. I am very
glad to see the four main goals that we are hoping we will be able to accomplish
by making the changes to this particular act.
There
are also some key differences in the new act from the existing piece of
legislation that we have. Mainly
there are six key differences and I would like to just touch on those.
The definitions of a child care service and a child care provider have
been clarified. It has also been
strengthened. That will outline some
of the specific exemptions to each definition.
There is
a difference between a child care service and a child care provider.
I spoke with the minister earlier today talking about child care
providers and some of the certification and courses that they have to do, and
the different levels in being a child care provider.
The type
of services in child care providers – they all offer different types of child
care services. One of the key
differences in the new piece of legislation to the existing piece of legislation
will be the definitions between the two, between the service and the provider.
One of
the second key differences is the capacity limited that is for the regulated
child care licence. We have removed
that capacity limited. That allows
the licensee to determine the scope of the service they are now going to
provide. It will be able to do this,
but it will not impact the quality of service.
Now a
child care provider can decide what type of service they are going to provide.
The quality of service, I feel, will be enhanced because they can now
decide the type of service they are going to provide in their particular care
centre.
We
talked about the appeals process for a licensing decision.
That is being defined. We did
not have an appeals process in the existing piece of legislation.
Having that appeals process in there now, you have thirty days to file an
appeal and then you have to receive a response to that within sixty days.
I think that is a very important addition to the piece of legislation.
One of
the other key differences is the minister of the department will appoint the
provincial director of child care, whereas in the existing piece of legislation
the Cabinet makes that decision; it is a Cabinet decision.
Now that will be the decision of the minister who is responsible for the
department. The normal public
service competition process will apply to that position.
It will follow in with other pieces of legislation, but it will be the
minister who will make the decision and not the Cabinet themselves.
Regional
managers; we talked about regional managers will not be appointed as inspectors.
The whole purpose of this is to provide transparency in the inspection
process, because if the regional managers are the inspectors, sometimes people
feel well, there are some shaded things that are happening there.
So now the regional managers will not be appointed as inspectors.
The inspectors will be outside of the regional managers.
Of
course, the statutory review, the sixth and final major difference in the two
pieces of legislation, the old legislation, or existing legislation, and the new
act is that this statutory review will be mandatory every five years.
What I really like about the statutory review is the public consultation
piece. With the public consultation,
I have been involved certainly as an MHA in the House of Assembly in the
provincial government, but even before that as a councillor in my municipality,
and also as a business person.
I have
been involved in many public consultations when it came to pieces of legislation
being changed. I feel it is a very
important process to have the public's opinion, to listen to the public, to have
them help us in how a piece of legislation will be enacted, how a piece of
legislation will be written. I think
it is important that we listen. That
is something that certainly this government does.
When it comes to child care, I do not think you can have too much
consultation.
As I
stated early, it has been fifteen years since there has been a review, since
there has been a change in this piece of legislation.
I think that is too long. You
look at the demographics, the changes that have been made over the last fifteen
years, certainly in our economy and in the style of living that Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians have today compared to what it was fifteen years ago.
There have been major changes in the style of life that we live as
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I
think fifteen years is too long. The
five-year process will work much better and having the public consultation.
This is
not a complicated piece of legislation, but it is a very important piece of
legislation. It is a piece of
legislation that I think addresses the lifestyle of our future.
In saying that, I talk about the children.
In my
own family there are two or three educators.
One of my siblings actually is an early childhood educator and has been
all her life, or all of her professional life.
For the past forty years she has been an early childhood educator living
in Prince Edward Island. They, at
one time, had private schools when it came to early childhood education.
So she actually had her own school for about twenty, twenty-five years
until they brought in the Kindergarten system.
It was
amazing to see. I think every time I
went to visit her she was always upgrading.
That is so important. When
you look at the quality that the early childhood educators give to our young
children, realizing they are our future, I think this is a very important issue.
I am
certainly going to be supporting this bill.
I hope everybody else, all of my hon. colleagues in the House, will also
support it. I look forward to this
bill being implemented.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If the Minister of Education
and Early Childhood Development speaks now she will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MS SULLIVAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to say it has certainly been a lively debate.
That is not surprising when we are talking about our children.
It is something that is near and dear to everybody's hearts, I truly
believe. So everybody needs and
wants to have some opportunity to speak.
I am very pleased by that as well because it is something we ought to
recognize.
I would
like to start out by thanking the speakers.
We had the Member for St. John's North, the Member for Terra Nova, the
Member for St. Barbe, the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune, the Member for
Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, the Member for Harbour Main, the Member for St. John's
Centre, and the Member for Labrador West.
Mr. Speaker, obviously a big degree of interest shown in the House of
Assembly around this particular bill.
Mr.
Speaker, I am not going to belabour too much of what that debate already
encompassed and entailed, except to say that quite often it strayed outside the
boundaries of the act itself. Just
for the sake of clarification, I want to ensure that everyone in the House and
everyone at home know what it was that this bill was to do.
The bill
is to repeal and replace the Child Care Services Act.
The bill would require child care services and agencies to be licensed
unless exempt. It would establish
licensing processes. The bill will
appoint inspectors and establish the powers of inspectors to carry out
inspections of child care services and agencies, and establish the process for
issuing orders when a child care service or agency violates the act or the
regulations.
Mr.
Speaker, that is what this bill is meant to do.
It is strayed into – when people were speaking – many of the things that
would be covered under regulation and under programs.
When we talk about affordability, for example, that is something that
would be addressed under programs.
When we talk about sufficient number of child care spaces – because I could
stand here and wax eloquent about all of those particular issues, but that is
not the spirit of this particular bill.
We are
introducing six only key changes.
One is an exemption to licensing. I
do not intend to outline all of that again, but just for the sake of those who
are at home and listening, we looked at exemptions to licensing, in other words
what would be clearly classified and defined as a child care service and what
would not; what a child care service provider is and what a child care service
provider is not, because in the old act those exemptions were very much open to
broad interpretations. We wanted to
clarify that. We wanted to ensure
that it was strengthened.
The
second change this bill is looking at is the capacity limit on a licence.
We are looking at lifting the cap on simply having centres that could
accommodate only sixty children in a child care centre.
We lifted the cap, or that is what the bill is proposing to do here.
That really allows flexibility for licensees in determining the scope of
the services they can offer. It is
something that parents are looking for.
It is something that child care centres are looking for and so on.
The
third was around the appeals process.
If, in fact, a violation after an inspector has gone in, has found a
violation and has issued a violation order, or in fact has revoked or suspended
a licence, then there ought to be an appeals process.
That did not exist before, so to provide transparency and clarity we are
ensuring an appeals process.
The
appointment of a provincial director to mirror other provincial legislation, Mr.
Speaker, for example, the Statistics Agency Act, or the Children and Youth Care
and Protection Act, or the Adoptions Act.
So, it is simply mirroring what happens in other acts.
Appointment of inspectors, again, to ensure that we knew exactly what we were
talking about and to clarify that, to make sure it was very clear as to who
could be an inspector, who was not an inspector.
Then finally we added into this act as well the piece around statutory
review to assure there is regular transparent and legislative review processes
in place, and that would be every five years.
Mr.
Speaker, again, that clarity around what the act was, what we intended to do in
the act, and again, a thank you to those people who spoke to this act, and I
look forward to taking this into Committee next.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House that the said bill now be read a second time?
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Regulate
Child Care Services. (Bill 30)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. KING:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Regulate Child Care Services”, read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 30)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that the House resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 30.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve itself into a Committee of
the Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Littlejohn):
Order, please!
We are
considering Bill 30, An Act To Regulate Child Care Services.
A bill,
“An Act To Regulate Child Care Services”.
(Bill 30)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Chair, I have a number of
amendments, but it was my understanding that the government was going to make an
amendment. So maybe –
MR. KING:
It has to be with each
clause.
MR. KIRBY:
Oh, okay, good.
I understand now.
So you
are on clause 1.
CHAIR:
Clause 1.
MR. KIRBY:
Okay.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wanted
to get up and make a suggestion for an amendment to clause 2.
Clause 2 is the definitions section of this bill.
I think it is important to try to be as inclusive as possible when it
comes to all of our legislation as it relates to education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. KIRBY:
Whether that is education at
the preschool level, the primary, the elementary, the secondary, or
post-secondary, and so on. I believe
that government's intent over the past number of years has been to try to move
to a more inclusive model in education.
Yesterday I asked a question in Question Period about the inclusion supports
program review that government has promised as part of its 10-Year Child Care
Strategy. I think we need to be
explicit about inclusion of people who have been excluded in the education
system at all levels over the past number of years.
We do not want to go back to the days of Exon House and times when people
were not included in the education system and were not included in their
community by virtue of the fact.
I think
what we ought to be doing with this bill is ensuring that the Child Care Act
reflects that intent. I think in
order to do that we need to be explicit, as I say.
I am
going to suggest an amendment here to clause 2.
I am going to move this, seconded by the Member for Mount Pearl South,
that the bill is amended at clause 2.(e) by adding immediately after the word
“old” the words “and a child with special needs”.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
We will
recess to consider the amendment.
This
House stands in recess.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
After
consideration of the amendment, the amendment is not in order.
Shall
clause 2 carry?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I
sort of alluded to the last time I was speaking, I hear from parents all of the
time who are concerned and pointing out deficiencies in the child care system
because they believe their children are not being included in child care.
That is their concern.
We know
when children with special needs, with exceptionalities of one sort or another,
when parents are looking for an opportunity to place them in the child care
system, they are often excluded because the level of support is not there.
So, my
intention with the following amendment – I have an additional amendment – is to
ensure that we are explicit, that children with special needs do not fall
through the cracks, that they are provided with an opportunity for child care.
That is not happening right now, and we need to change that.
The only
way, I feel, and based on discussions I have had with advocates in the community
over the past three years, the only way we can make that happen is to be
explicit about what we intend. It is
fine to say we include children and by that, we mean whatever.
Well, I do not think there is a sufficient amount of specificity in any
of that.
I will
put forward the following amendment to clause 2.
I move, seconded by the Member for Mount Pearl South, the bill is amended
by adding immediately after clause 2.(g) the following clause (g) –
CHAIR:
Clause 2.(g), is that what
the hon. member is saying?
MR. KIRBY:
I think there was a typo in
what was provided to me by somebody who I will not – clause 2.(g) –
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. KIRBY:
The following clause 2.(g),
so the rest of the section would need to be be renumbered accordingly.
It would
read: “‘child with special needs' means a person under the age of majority who
suffers from a developmental, learning or behavioural disability or has been
recognized as a person requiring a specialized program or specialized
supervision”. That would be added
there.
I
apologize if it is not explicitly clear.
I did provide these amendments for review ahead of time.
I think maybe when they were reprinted, they might have added the number
one here.
The bill
is amended by adding immediately –
CHAIR:
The bill is amended by adding
immediately after clause 2.(g) the following clause.
MR. KIRBY:
That is correct.
Yes, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Okay.
Thank you.
MR. KIRBY:
You do not need me to read it
out again, do you?
CHAIR:
No, I have it here in front
of me, Sir.
MR. KIRBY:
Okay, thank you.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. KING:
Yes, I am just looking for
clarification here. Is the intent
that this amendment would become the new (g) and all of (g) becomes (h)?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's North, for clarification.
MR. KIRBY:
Yes, that is what I had
intended. It did not come out like
this in this version of it. That is
what my intent was, yes. This would
be (g) and the other one that is in there that is currently (g) would become
(h).
CHAIR:
It would become (h).
Thank
you, hon. member.
This House will be recessed to consider the following amendment.
Thank
you.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
After
consideration of the amendment, the amendment is not in order.
Shall
clause 2 carry?
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, clause 2 carried.
CHAIR:
Clause 3.
The hon.
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MS SULLIVAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr.
Chair, I realize this debate is very important, and, of course, everybody in
this House is concerned about children.
We are concerned to see that the best is done, particularly about our
youngest children, and those are the children we are referring to when we are
talking about this particular act, An Act To Regulate Child Care Services.
While I
appreciate what the members opposite are trying to accomplish, I want to ensure
the people of the Province that we, too, are concerned about all children.
That is why we looked at the previous two amendments that were brought
forward very carefully and tried to have some discussion around them as well.
With
clause 3, I listened very carefully yesterday, or the last legislative day when
we discussed, and the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi and the Leader of the
Third Party brought up a very good point when she spoke about having the
continuum of care looked at with regard to early childhood development in the
same way as we are looking at the Schools Act because that was the intent, in
fact, back when we brought together the two departments of Early Childhood
Development and Education.
She made
reference to the Schools Act of 1997, and talked about the fact that there was
reference in the Schools Act to safe and caring schools and about creating
environments where learning can happen, and questioned why that was not included
in this act. I thought that a very
good point. We had some further
discussion, and together with the drafters and Legislative Counsel, we then
worked up an amendment, which I would like to present here today.
I will
move, seconded by the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, that the bill is
amended by adding immediately after clause 3 the following:
“3.1 The
following persons shall promote a safe and nurturing environment for learning
for children participating in child care services: (a) licensees; (b) child care
service providers; (c) administrators; (d) caregivers; and (e) employees,
students and volunteers who assist or provide services in the operation of a
child care service or agency.”
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Thank you.
This
House will recess to consider the amendment.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
After
consideration, the amendment is not in order.
Shall
clause 3 carry?
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
The hon.
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.
MS SULLIVAN:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Mr.
Chair, I am wondering if we can have some clarification or explanation as to why
that was not in order.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 3 carry?
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, clause 3 carried.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 4 carry?
The hon.
the Member for St. Johns' North.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
previously tried to make two amendments to the bill and it was not successful.
What I am trying to point out, through my attempted amendments to the
legislation, is to shine a light on a very sad, sad part of child care in
Newfoundland –
CHAIR:
I remind the hon. member, are
you making an amendment to clause 4?
MR. KIRBY:
I am.
CHAIR:
Okay.
MR. KIRBY:
It is consistent with the
other two that I entered. The reason
why I think – I am wondering I can motivate it, can I?
CHAIR:
Yes, I am fine, hon. member.
I was just trying to make sure that you were proposing an amendment.
MR. KIRBY:
Okay, so I was just trying to
motivate, but thanks for the leeway.
I am
just trying to shine a light on more or less what I have learned through my
study of this, through my discussion of this, and through my visits to child
care centres. All the calls I have
gotten from parents, from stakeholders, associations over the past number of
years is that children are excluded oftentimes from child care and too often
because of their special exceptionalities.
They have different challenges and different needs from the bulk of
students in the school system. I
just think that is patently unfair.
We can
say that this speaks to everyone, but it is not.
It is not working right now.
It is not working so we have to do something different.
I think by singling out that children are excluded and are not receiving
the same services as other children, I think that is really important.
If anybody disagrees, you can go out and do a poll of all the
associations in Newfoundland and Labrador if you like.
Go out and do a poll of all the child care centres in Newfoundland and
Labrador. You can go out and do a
poll of all the parents, even those who do not have children with
exceptionalities, and I think you will find that people will agree that children
with special education needs deserve to have the same educational opportunities
as other children in Newfoundland and Labrador from birth right on through.
That is my intent, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to clarify that.
I am
going to make the following amendment, seconded by the Member for Mount Pearl
South. The bill is amended at clause
(4) by deleting the word “and” at the end of clause 4.(c), by deleting the
period at the end of clause 4.(d) and substituting a semicolon and the word
“and” and by adding immediately after that clause the following: “(e)
establishing province-wide policies and standards respecting the provision of
services to children with special needs in child care settings.”
I just
want to clarify what that would do because the beginning of that – that is part
Part I, Administration, and it is the responsibility of the provincial director,
because remember we talked about the provincial director is no longer going to
be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council; it is going to be the
minister. This would read: the
minister shall appoint a person – this is what it would logically mean – “The
minister shall appoint a person to be the Provincial Director of Child Care who
shall be responsible for” – and then you go down to (e) – “establishing
province-wide policies and standards respecting the provision of services to
children with special needs in child care settings.”
That is what it would be, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The
House will take a brief recess to consider the amendment.
This
House is in recess.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
We
considered the amendment; the amendment is not in order.
Shall
clause 4 carry?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
appreciate you considering the amendment.
We could propose further amendments, but as we have said already in the
debate, we are certainly all in favour of passage of this legislation because it
is something that we need. I think
we should all be cognizant of the fact that children with special education
needs and exceptionalities are not currently being accommodated in the child
care system, and we have to try and put our heads together and find ways to
change that because it is really not twenty-first century thinking, learning, or
anything else.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MS SULLIVAN:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Mr.
Chair, I understand the intent of what the member opposite was trying to do with
the amendments. Being concerned
about children with special needs and trying to ensure inclusion for children
with special needs is something that is exceptionally important to this
government. That is why we have
worked in a number of different areas with a number of different partners and a
number of different groups; however, I would point out that the act itself was a
legislative statute.
When the
regulations are finished and he gets a chance to see the regulations, I want to
assure him, the Member for St. John's North, and the people of the Province,
that they will see much reference to inclusion, much reference to children with
special needs, and how it is they are to be accommodated within our child care
environments in Newfoundland and Labrador.
That will be in the regulations, which is the right place for them to be.
I just
want to assure any of the parents who are watching, there is no intent on the
part of government to exclude that.
The act is a legislative statute that had particular sections of it that needed
looking at, nothing more. Looking at
children with special needs is certainly very much part of what we will see in
the regulations.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 4 carry?
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, clause 4 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 5 through 42 inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 5 to 42
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 5 through 42 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative
Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Regulate Child Care Services.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, that the
Committee rise and report the bill.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 30.
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr.
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
The hon. the Member for
Port de Grave.
MR. LITTLEJOHN:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 30 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole says that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed him to report Bill 30 carried without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. KING:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, report received and adopted.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
like to call from the Orders of the Day, Address in Reply.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. GRANTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
want to take a few minutes. I
started to speak earlier this week on the Address in Reply and I want to take
the last few minutes I have this afternoon to continue with that.
It is good to stand here in the House to speak to that bill here this
afternoon.
I just
want to pick up on something that the Member for Bay of Islands talked about
earlier today with regard to the meeting that took place last week in Corner
Brook. I, too, was at that hospital
committee meeting. Mr. Speaker, I
too am supportive of the achievements and the advancement of the hospital in
Corner Brook.
As the
minister said in the House this week, it is a new facility, Mr. Speaker, that
will continue to offer a high level of services currently available at Western
Memorial, but we are going to move it forward even more than that in new program
offerings, such as radiation therapy.
It will give residents of the region access to radiation services closer
to home, and that is always very important.
I think members of both sides of the House all understand that and
appreciate that. That is something
that is going to take place and we are going to do.
Without having to travel to St. John's and keeping
close to their families and supportive environments – numerous ministers in this
House and the former Premier of the Province spoke to that when he was in this
House. We are all very supportive of
that. Just to commit to what was
discussed in the meeting last week, and I know what the Member for Bay of
Islands said today – we talked about the long-term care facility, which is
budgeted in the House, will start in 2015, and the acute care and the rest of
the buildings will start in 2016. So
I know that we need to work together to ensure that takes place.
My commitment is there, and the commitment of this
government is there for the long-term care facility to begin in 2015, and the
acute care facility to begin in 2016 to provide the state-of-the-art, the best
equipment, and the best possible health care that we can provide for the
residents of Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker – not only the residents of Corner Brook,
but it is a regional hospital and a regional facility with long-term care and
acute care facilities for the entire people of the Western part of the Province.
I spoke at length to that last spring, and again I
thought I would just put that in there again today.
We can equate it to, Mr. Speaker, this particular work of the committee
that is taking place in Corner Brook, and we worked with another committee in
Corner Brook, this government did, and I know members opposite as well, when we
were going through the months leading up to the mill announcement that we did
just earlier this year. I spoke to
that earlier on this week.
I know there was a concerned citizens group at that
particular point in time that met with us and met with members opposite and we
were in agreement about the value and the importance of the mill in Corner
Brook. Not only for the current
workers, not only for past workers, but for widows and widowers, and families of
widows and widowers who worked with former Bowater and Kruger.
We committed $110 million to the mill in Corner Brook, not only for that
particular region but for numerous communities throughout the Province.
It was a commitment, Mr. Speaker, for the industry – a
commitment that took a number of months.
I was a part of the group and others as well, opposite, we sat down and
negotiated and spoke about it and dealt with it over a number of months, and
made a commitment, and spent hours and hours and hours.
I was the Parliamentary Secretary in Natural Resources – Agrifoods, at
the time, with former Minister Kennedy, former Minister Marshall, he was with
Natural Resources, and the current Minister of Natural Resources.
We worked with the people, we worked with the
community, we worked with the unions, we worked with the former workers of the
mill, we worked with management of the mill, and we worked with the mother
company in Montreal. It took
fourteen or fifteen months, Mr. Speaker – perhaps a little longer than that.
There are times when you are in negotiations, big negotiations – $110
million – when you know what is taking place on the inside, and you just cannot
talk about it publicly, but you know that along the rail or along the road that
progress is taking place. You know
along the way certain things you can say and certain things you cannot say.
Along that journey, Mr. Speaker, we all had information and we tried to
make as much information possible as you can, yet you do not want to jeopardize
what might be transpiring, especially when you are dealing with private
companies.
I really feel strong about the commitment we made to
the mill in Corner Brook. I look
opposite, as well, to the Member for Bay of Islands, and we had the support of
them during that entire process. It
is the same thing with the hospital, Mr. Speaker.
When I say hospital, I am talking about the entire facility, all of the
buildings that we are going to build in Corner Brook for the entire region.
We need to work together and we need to commit together, such that the
health of the people of Corner Brook and the entire region is second to none.
That is the commitment you have from me, as the Member
for Humber West, and I know the member opposite and from this government, from
the Premier of the Province, from the former Premier, from the Minister of
Health, and the former ministers in this government, we talk about providing the
very best possible services we can provide for the people of the Province.
Mr. Speaker, we have all done a lot of work over the
last number of months, knocking on doors and talking to our constituents.
I am very pleased about the information I have received from time to time
when I speak to my constituents.
They all tell me about the commitments we made to the people of the region and
are very happy with the promises we made, and are happy with the promises we
have committed and the promises we have delivered on.
Mr. Speaker, for the next three or four minutes I have
in this chance to speak in Address in Reply, I want to talk for those last four
or five minutes this afternoon about the commitments we made to fishery in the
Province. I want to speak in the
capacity that I have right now as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Mr. Speaker, it is a billion-dollar industry in
Newfoundland and Labrador. We have
seen massive changes in the fishery from the way the fishery was many, many
years ago. It is now a
billion-dollar industry. This
government is committed, and I am proud to stand here as Minister of Fisheries
and Aquaculture to talk about how important the fishery is to all of
Newfoundland and Labrador but, more importantly, how important the fishery is
and aquaculture industry is to the rural parts of the Province.
It is the life blood of who we are as a culture and as
a people, Mr. Speaker. The fishery
has been around as long as our ancestors have been around.
Previous to the Europeans coming to this great country of ours, this
great land of ours, even before that, the fishery was what sustained our
ancestors.
We talk about our non-renewal resources that we have
today which are finite. We have them
today. Eventually over time we will
lose them, but we better not lose sight.
As the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture it is important to me, and
it is not lost on me as Fisheries Minister that the fishery is a renewable
resource like our forestry; it is a renewable resource that will sustain our
communities in rural parts of the Province for generations and generations to
come, Mr. Speaker.
So, I am proud to be able to stand here today in the
Address in Reply to talk about the billion-dollar industry and what we have
committed. I want to take a couple
of minutes just to talk briefly about two or three of those things – a $4
million investment, Mr. Speaker, in the Fisheries Technology and New
Opportunities Program. For people in
the industry, perhaps not for the people who are listening at home, across my
desk we put the acronym out there, FTNOP.
How many times in the short period of time that I have been in Fisheries
and Aquaculture do I see an application come across or approval to come across
for a FTNOP, which enables the industry and fishers and harvesters and others
who are looking at alternatives to technologies that can enhance their ability
to be able to compete with the industry worldwide, Mr. Speaker.
We had a collapse in our cod fishery in Newfoundland
and Labrador, the moratorium, and we need to understand that although we had a
collapse in the cod fishery in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, there
was no collapse in the cod fishery worldwide.
That fishery throughout the world continued.
When we return to a cod fishery in the Province, it is important we all
remember that we have the best technologies available for harvesters and for
fishers and for plant workers, et cetera, because we are competing with the
other countries of the world that are putting good quality products on the
market.
I was over in China just very recently, and what I saw
over there after being there for about eight days is the importance of quality,
quality, quality. How many times did
it get spoken to me by people from Norway, and people from Chile, and people
from other countries of the world, how important quality is?
I have had numerous meetings since I have been the Minister of Fisheries
and Aquaculture – and actually, I am proud to say I do not believe there has
been a phone call that has come to my office yet that I have not been able to
sit down and arrange a time that I am going to be able to sit and meet with
fishers and union representatives, whether from the South Coast or other parts
of the Province, industry folk alike.
I am trying to do that and trying to get an
understanding of where we need to be, Mr. Speaker, when the cod fishery –
because we know that the cod fishery is coming back.
We have had numerous years with shrimp and with crab, yet we need to be
prepared. If we are going to get
prepared for a return of the fisheries to be involved in the cod fishery, as we
once knew it, focusing on quality, quality, quality, we need to make steps now
so when that day comes we are going to open up that cod fishery again the way it
was, then we need to be prepared, and that is what we are trying to do as a
department, Mr. Speaker.
I am
looking at the clock. It is five
seconds that I have, Mr. Speaker. I
look forward to speaking about other fisheries and aquaculture issues as we go
on.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
Was the member asking for
leave?
MR. GRANTER:
I can ask for leave, Mr.
Speaker, this afternoon.
MR. SPEAKER:
The member has two minutes
leave to finish.
MR. GRANTER:
Two minutes leave.
Mr.
Speaker, another investment I am glad to speak to this afternoon in the fishing
industry is the $2 million continued funding for the Canadian Centre for
Fisheries Innovation. This
investment will be made over two years to ensure industry stakeholders can avail
of the centre's expertise and resources when pursuing innovations that build
competitive advantages.
As I say
all the time, if we are going to compete on the world stage, we need to be using
the best technologies that we have and we need to be producing the highest
quality fish product. We can take
product in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and we can dump it on the world markets,
but if we are not taking the best quality of fish out of water, no matter what
species it is – if we are not taking that out of the water, good quality and
being able to make sure it is fresh and go onto the world markets, clean, high
quality, then we are going to be getting a lower price.
Sometimes, as I said before, and a question that was asked a week ago, we often
talk about quotas and increasing the quotas.
Obviously, there is another way as well that we can increase the amount
of money that goes into the pockets of a fisher, or the amount of money that
goes into the pockets of people who work in the fishery, is to increase the
quality. When you increase the
quality, Mr. Speaker, you are actually going to get a better price at the end of
the day.
I know
on average this past year, I understand – and I do not have that note in front
of me – it was around seventy cents a pound people got for cod fish, and they
could have gotten like thirty-five, forty, forty-five, and fifty cents.
On average across the board, I understand it was around seventy cents a
pound in the previous year, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, another industry that is vitally important in the Province is the $6
million we have allocated for Aquaculture Capital Equity Program, an investment
that will help foster new investment in aquaculture operations which in turn
will stimulate the economy in rural areas.
We have seen how important the aquaculture industry is on the South Coast
of the Province.
Do I
have more leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER:
Does the member have leave to
continue?
MR. GRANTER:
A couple of more minutes?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. GRANTER:
Mr. Speaker, between 2006 and
2013, the provincial government invested approximately $25 million to support
aquaculture development in our industry in the Province.
That leveraged $400 million.
So, $400 million in aquaculture in the Province that was leveraged.
Since I have been in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, there
is high interest in developing and further developing the aquaculture industry
on the South Coast and on the Northeast Coast.
Mr.
Speaker, another investment of $4.9 million over two years to support the Centre
for Fisheries Ecosystem Research.
Since 2010, the provincial government has committed $15.1 million to the Marine
Institute Centre for the Fisheries Ecosystem Research.
It conducts research – as I say to my hon. member across – that gives the
Province unprecedented insight into trends involving provincial fish resources
and marine environment, and helps us plan for the future.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to conclude by saying the fishery has always been the backbone
of who we are as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
It sustained us – and I will continue to say to this – for hundreds of
years and it will sustain us again for generations and generations to come.
As a Province, we need to be prepared as we re-enter, and I quote, the
cod fishery as we move that industry forward.
We need to continue to invest in the fisheries industry of the Province,
Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Given
the time of day, I move, seconded by my hon. colleague, the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture, that the House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
motion is that this House do now adjourn.
All
those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
This
House now stands adjourned until Monday.
To those
members who are travelling back to their districts, the weather is bad in
different parts of the Island; I wish you safe travels on the weekend.
I hope to see you all on Monday.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.