Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 21 November 2001 (44th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLIV No. 35)
2001-11-21
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
November 21, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 35
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we begin our routine proceedings, I would like to welcome to the
gallery today the former member for the district of Conception Bay South,
Patricia Cowan; and Mr. Jim Hearn, former chairperson of the Newfoundland and
Labrador School Boards Association.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: I would also like to welcome the former member for The
Straits & White Bay North, Chris Decker, standing in the gallery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in the House at this time to congratulate the Community Youth Network
in the Trinity-Conception area on the opening of their centre in Harbour Grace.
The SPLASH Centre - which stands for Students Positively Learning, Achieving,
Succeeding, Helping - was designed by young people, for young people, and also
will provide transportation for the youth of the area to and from the facility
at no extra cost.
The centre has a kitchen facility, fitness room, study area, computer room
with Internet access as well as services such as youth counselling, peer
tutoring, career counselling, and a mental health worker.
The centre was created for young people up to the age of eighteen and their
involvement grants them input into any decisions made regarding the operation of
the centre. The steering committee of the centre has twenty-five members, twelve
of whom are young people. Other members of the committee come from the RCMP,
social workers, educators, as well as people from Human Resources and
Development and Human Resources and Employment. This facility provides young
people with the opportunity to find outlets for their energies and gives them a
sense of responsibility in that the facility is theirs to utilize how they see
fit.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of this House to join me in congratulating
the Trinity-Conception Community Youth Network, its volunteers, and the youth of
the area on the opening of the SPLASH Centre and wishing them great success in
their future endeavours.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the sixty-six members
of Torbay's Holy Trinity Senior Concert Band and the twenty-one concert band
members who make up the Holy Trinity Jazz Band for their outstanding showing in
a national competition.
The concert band and the jazz band both won gold awards in the national
Musicfest Canada competition final in Hull, Quebec in May of this year.
The national competition involves 8,000 students from across the country.
Both bands are under the directorship of Douglas Vaughan, whose dedication
and expertise is unquestionably second to none in the country.
This is not the first time these bands have shone on the national stage. In
1995, both bands won gold in Calgary. In 1997, the jazz band won silver and the
concert band won gold in Ottawa. In 1999, both bands won silver in Toronto. This
year, they are number one.
In the past year alone, the cost of travel for the bands was $80,000, the
majority of which was borne by the parents.
I would like to thank the present and former Ministers of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation for their assistance in helping to offset a portion of those
costs. It is clearly a sound investment to be supporting and promoting some of
the best student musicians in the entire country. They deserve all the support
and applause we can give them.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the news team at VOCM on
winning the Edward R. Murrow Award for the best news cast in a small market.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: The Radio-Television News Directors Association has been
honoring outstanding achievements in electronic journalism with the Edward R.
Murrow Awards since 1971. Murrow's pursuit of excellence in journalism
embodies the spirit of the award that carry his name. The Murrow Award
recipients demonstrate a spirit of excellence and the highest standard for the
electronic news profession.
Mr. Speaker, the relationship between the news media and politicians is
sometimes described as adversarial but I think there is a realization that we
both have a job to do. There is also a realization that when the job is done
well society is better because of it.
I ask all members to join with me in congratulating VOCM on winning this
major news award.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to a former municipal
colleague of mine in the City of Mount Pearl, Councillor Randy Simms, who was
recently elected to the Presidency of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation
of Municipalities.
Councillor Simms was first elected to the city council in Mount Pearl in
1989, and was re-elected in 1993, 1997, and in 2001. During those years, he has
served as an Urban Director with the NLFM, and from1996 to 1998 he served as the
Federation's Vice-President. He currently serves as Chairperson of Municipal
Assessment Agency.
Mr. Speaker, President Randy Simms is a founding member of the Newfoundland
Chapter of the Bruce Denninston Bone Marrow Society and has been honored as a
life member of the Lions Foundation of Canada. In 1999, and again in the year
2000, he was named by District 41 S-2 of Lions as the Lion's Supporter of the
Year.
Councillor Simms also serves as Executive Director of the VOCM Cares
Foundation and KIXX Country Children's Trust Fund. He has been a long-time
member of the local broadcasting community.
Mr. Speaker, the challenges facing municipalities in this Province today are
many and diverse. I have every confident that President Simms will be an
articulate and forceful voice on behalf of those communities that are a part of
the Federation.
I am sure every member of this House wishes President Simms congratulations,
and his board every success.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse St. Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in the House today to acknowledge the great work of the Battle Harbour
Literacy Council who have just been awarded the Canada Post Literacy Award for
Community Leadership. This award honours non-profit, volunteer, and labour
organizations that have demonstrated long-term achievement, innovation and
organizational excellence in furthering the cause of literacy.
Having been a founding member of the Battle Harbour Literacy Council in 1995,
I am very proud of their accomplishments and service to communities in the
region. They have made remarkable progress in the field of literacy in the
communities of Mary's Harbour, Lodge Bay and St. Lewis. To date, they have
published three oral histories, one publication, Twine Lofts and Pantries
is currently being used as a text book for a folklore course at Memorial
University. The other two publications, Seniors Profile , and Our Time
- Our Story features stories and profiles of seniors in the area and are
used extensively in literacy programs they provide.
The Battle Harbour Literacy Council continues to expand and thrive in the
literacy field. Their board, consisting of nine members from all the communities
in the area, works extensively on a volunteer basis. Today I commend them,
acknowledge them and their coordinators, Ms Marilyn Rumbolt and Ms Bonnie
Rumbolt, for the work that they do in literacy in our Province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to recognize today a very important group in our Province, known
as the Protected Areas Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Protected
Areas Association is a non-profit, non-governmental organization dedicated to
the establishment of a network of protected natural areas in our Province,
working towards the goals of a network of parks and reserves to preserve
examples of all thirty-five of the eco-regions of our Province. I particularly
would like to recognize a constituent of mine, Ms Laura Jackson, who acts as the
executive director of this particular association.
Approximately two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, there was a fund-raising event at
the LSPU Hall, on behalf of the Protected Areas Association, and at that event
included the following well-known Newfoundland personalities: Terry Rielly,
Dermot O'Reilly, Gordon Quinton, Agnes Walsh, Delf Maria Hohmann, Christopher
Newhook, the Cowan Heights Grade V Choir and the Barbara Ashley School of Dance.
Certainly, on behalf of my own constituents - and I am sure it is fair to say
on behalf of all of us present - we certainly wish the Protected Areas
Association of Newfoundland and Labrador well as it continues its work in this
very worthwhile cause.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify statements made
recently about the temporary layoff of employees in the engineering division of
the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.
This year, twenty-six engineering employees will be laid off temporarily over
the winter period due to seasonal shutdown of summer operations. These employees
are primarily Engineering Aide II's, Materials Inspectors II's and
Engineering Technicians. I would like to emphasize that these are not permanent
layoffs. When construction projects resume in the spring, the twenty-six
employees will be recalled.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that depending on weather
conditions and the nature of the project, it is quite possible some current
construction projects may continue into the winter. If this is the case, some of
these twenty-six employees will not be laid off and their layoff notices will be
rescinded.
Over the past several years, because of the magnitude of road construction
projects, it was possible for the department to assign some of these twenty-six
employees to winter surveys and other work required to support new projects,
such as planning and design work. Unfortunately, we are coming to the conclusion
of the $640 million federal-provincial Roads for Rail Agreement, signed in 1988.
The new projects still to be done do not require winter survey work, and
therefore the need for these crews no longer exists. In the past, we kept
employees on when we could but that may not be possible this year.
Seasonal layoffs are an annual occurrence in the Department of Works,
Services and Transportation due to the nature of our projects. Mr. Speaker,
again I would like to emphasize that these layoffs are temporary and it is
possible, depending on weather conditions, they may continue into the winter and
they may not be laid off at all.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Finance has recently stated that there would be no layoffs
due to the restraints. Obviously, this is not so. The Minister of Works,
Services and Transportation referenced the Roads for Rail Agreement. That is in
place for some thirteen years. There are people being laid off, Mr. Speaker, who
have been working for over twenty years.
The minister is trying to rationalize these layoffs as being routine, and
they are not routine. Many are being laid off for the first time. The Minister
of Works, Services and Transportation is doing himself a disservice to his own
credibility by trying to hoodwink the people of the Province and trying to get
them to believe that this is routine. It is not, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi-Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As late as yesterday, the minister was dismissing this as all rumours and
that he might know next week some time what the situation was in his own
department. Now he tells us these are seasonal layoffs, but we know that some of
the people being laid off have been there for twenty years without any layoff,
long before the Roads for Rail Agreement, which the minister is using as an
excuse, even started.
Mr. Speaker, even in his own statement he is further confusing the issue by
saying that these projects do not require winter work, yet if the weather gets
better they will be recalled.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: The minister is further adding confusion to the whole issue,
Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday in my final question to the Premier, I asked the Premier if the
deficit for next year could be $100 million, $200 million, $300 million or $400
million. I did not receive an answer to that question.
This morning on CBC Radio, the Minister of Finance did not deny that the
deficit could exceed $400 million next year; and when asked if it was likely,
she quite honestly used the word "certainly".
Would the Premier tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador if it is
likely that the government will incur a deficit of $400 million next year?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, I invite all hon. members back to this
Chamber in March when we will lay out the Budget for next year. Just as we did
this year, Mr. Speaker, we will indicate, with the very best information we have
available to the government at that time, what our sources of revenue will be,
what our planned expenditures will be, which will show that there will either be
a surplus or a deficit. Mr. Speaker, that is what the budgetary process is all
about and that is what we will engage in, in March month, in a debate, a full
debate here in this Legislature.
The other point is this, Mr. Speaker: What we are dealing with now is the
circumstance in this particular fiscal year where there has been a change
acknowledged several times publicly by the Minister of Finance, and again
yesterday, that because of an increase for our public servants, that we are
proud of - and I am glad now to know that the Opposition concurs with - that
caused the deficit to go from $30 million to $60 million. Some recalculations,
basically.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that in 1984-1985, Mr. John Collins,
who was the Minister of Finance at the time, read a statement in the House
saying that: We predicted a current account -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER GRIMES: We predicted a current account deficit of $32 million and
I am now reporting, as a result of changes, Mr. Speaker, that the deficit will
be $82 million.
That is what we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker, being honest and open with the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not dealing with speculation and rumor, and
trying to scare people.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to take his seat.
PREMIER GRIMES: We have always put the facts before the people of the
Province and we will continue to proudly do so, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Finance for her honest
answer on CBC Radio this morning. Unfortunately, either the Premier does not
know the answer or he is too embarrassed to say.
Yesterday, in response to one of my questions to the Premier, the Premier
said there is no fiscal mismanagement. In fact, he said, "No, that is not
the case." Those were your words, Premier. I told him he would hear the
term mismanagement over, over and over again in this House.
Today, I would like to provide some examples of some decisions made while he
was either a minister, or Premier, and ask the Premier if he feels that these
decisions constitute mismanagement?
Mr. Premier, the Auditor General has said in her report that a government
agency was actually paying insurance on cars that were scrapped or did not exist
and, in fact, was paying insurance twice on the same car. Would you tell the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador whether that, in fact, constitutes
mismanagement?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the point that is being discussed, questioned and asked about is
this: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, in making this particular point,
talked about the Auditor General, as he is doing again today, and indicated that
the Auditor General had expressed some concerns in her report. That happens to
be a fact. It does indicate in that report that there are some concerns - I am
glad that they are laughing, because - just as the Auditor General, in every
single report from 1971 to 1989, expressed concerns. More so than concerns, look
at 1974. Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER GRIMES: You can laugh.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: In 1974 - and the point is this - the Leader of the
Opposition then tried to suggest that the Auditor General does not trust
government. That has never been said by the Auditor General. The concerns raised
in the last report were about accountability for outside agencies like hospital
boards, school boards, and the university, and the fact that their reports
should be tabled in the House.
Listen to the language, Mr. Speaker, from 1974.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, much more seriously than talking about concerns that outside
agencies do not table their reports, in 1974 there were concerns about irregular
payments, irregularities related to capital works, irregular charges and
needless expenditures of public funds.
Mr. Speaker, I hope we can pursue this line of questioning further because it
does deserve some more comment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to take his seat.
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was in kindergarten when that first example was given, so I cannot
remember, I really do not know, but I assume that the fact that he did not
answer whether it was mismanagement or not is a yes. Another unanswered
question.
Mr. Speaker, the government has paid $567,000 for flying lessons that were
never used. Mr. Premier, does that constitute mismanagement?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe we can refer to a time a little more current, when the Leader of the
Opposition had graduated from kindergarten. Let's try 1986, in which again
there were concerns expressed by the Auditor General.
The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that every single year there are some
concerns expressed by the Auditor General, every single year. It is not an
occurrence that happened last year for the first time or for the only time in
history; every single year. Let me tell you this: The concerns expressed by the
Auditor General were about - and I invite the Leader of the Opposition to read
into the record the concerns actually registered - outside agencies not being
compelled to file their reports in the Legislature. That was the concern.
Mr. Speaker, in 1986 the concerns were about fees being paid. Listen to this,
Mr. Speaker: Not that an outside agency did not submit a report, but fees being
paid without proper legislative authority. No authority to pay the fees, and
other funds being dispersed without appropriate approvals.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: And in 1988, Mr. Speaker, a whole
section in the Auditor
General's Report - the last year that the member opposite supported then, and
supports now, absolutely supported them, even though, Mr. Speaker, there was a
full
section about concerns regarding -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to take his seat.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Premier, you might want to use some of those unused flying lessons
because you are flying by the seat of your pants in this Legislature.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, when the minister was Minister of Tourism -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: Listen to this.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, when the Premier was Minister of Tourism, he
abruptly disbanded the Cabot 500 Corporation and breached several contracts. He
wrongfully dismissed several employees who successfully sued the government and
won approximately $1 million in a court ordered decision.
Would the Premier tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador whether that
constitutes mismanagement?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, so that we do not lose the point of the question. Yesterday, the
Leader of the Opposition was trying to suggest that because - and it is a
serious point - the Auditor General had written a statement which he took out of
context, a statement which he conveniently took out of context - a nice move in
a courtroom maybe, a nice move by a lawyer. But, Mr. Speaker, a statement taken
out of context and the statement - because I invite the Leader of the Opposition
to read the statement into the record - was the Auditor General has concerns
about the fact that outside agencies are not accountable enough to the
Legislature and that their statements are not tabled in the House of Assembly.
That is concern raised by the Auditor General. So, yes, the Auditor General did
say there was a concern.
It did not mention fiscal mismanagement like it did in reports earlier. The
Leader of the Opposition in his final question yesterday said: The Auditor
General does not trust you, Mr. Premier, why should we? The Auditor General has
never, ever, said anything about not trusting the government. The Auditor
General has always said that every single record that was submitted has been
done in accordance with the Financial Administration Act -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - and proper accounting procedures, not the kind of
shameful and disgraceful reports that were given when the members opposite, the
party that they supported opposite -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to (inaudible).
PREMIER GRIMES: - were in place where it said there were irregular
payments and things done without approbation. A different level of concern.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: The shameful action was your firing employees of the Cabot
500 and costing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador $1 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: As Minister of Tourism, do you think your actions
constituted mismanagement? Yes or no, Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The issues that were dealt with at that time were done by me personally,
acting as a Minister of the Crown with legal advice, which indicated that what I
was doing was proper and legal. People challenged that. You would understand
that as a lawyer. I accepted legal advice which said what I was doing was right
and proper. Of course, we are not allowed to take legal advice now that you are
now a part-time politician. Normally you would understand that.
The legal advice was that the action that we were taking was proper and
appropriate. It was challenged. They had legal advice suggesting that it was
not. It went to court, Mr. Speaker, and the courts ruled in favour of the former
employees of the Cabot Corporation. A proper process, but not an action taken
with any vindictiveness by the government or any intention to cause any kind of
a problem for anybody. They can suggest that if they like, Mr. Speaker, and they
will answer for that again in the court of public opinion which is where we deal
because we are politicians who deal with the people of the Province, not the
legal niceties.
Mr. Speaker, I will not get into issues of whereby the Leader of the
Opposition, when he was in private practice, was involved in things like the
firewood operation out in Lewisporte that had all kinds of money from the
government that was never, ever paid back, Mr. Speaker. So, I guess that is okay
and that is good fiscal management, and it is not a problem.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I were in the Premier's seat, I would
take responsibility.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this year -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this year government signed a long-term lease
for a hanger contract in Gander without going to public tender at a cost of $7
million, plus $3million for renewal. No future government can get out of that
untendered contract for twenty years if the company exercises its options.
Given the fact that existing facilities were available at less cost, does the
Premier feel that this constitutes mismanagement?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, all of these issues have been matters of public debate in the Province
before. It was an issue in which it was absolutely necessary to make an action
to finish a relocation plan that this government is still very proud of, Mr.
Speaker, very proud, and does not apologize for and will not.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Just like, Mr. Speaker, I expect now that the Leader of
the Opposition, as the Member for Humber West, might stand up and say: Is it
fiscal mismanagement to relocate the forestry workers to Corner Brook, in his
own district, and build a new lab in Corner Brook for $2 million because it
makes sense to do so, because the one that is down here in Pleasantville is
condemned? Maybe he would like to talk about whether or not that is fiscal
mismanagement, to spend some money in Corner Brook as well, to finish a
relocation project that we are very proud of, has been very successful, and we
would do again tomorrow. We do not have any plans, but we would do it again if
it made some sense.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Another afternoon of unanswered questions.
Mr. Speaker, when the government manipulated the tendering process and
wrongfully awarded contracts to a Liberal supporter, it had to settle with the
rightful bidder for approximately $5 million. Would the Premier tell the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador whether this constitutes mismanagement?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador does not manipulate anything. We make decisions that we explain and
defend to the people of the Province as to why we made them, just like why we
are building a new lab in Corner Brook, which is going to cost $2 million. Maybe
he might like to talk about whether he agrees or disagrees with that kind of a
decision, Mr. Speaker. His constituents would probably like to know what he
feels and what his views are on that particular issue, because I do not know of
any accusation that we have manipulated anything. We have made some decisions
and we will defend those decisions, and we will make other decisions and always
tell the people of the Province why we made the decision and what we are doing
it for.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am still at a loss to understand why the government paid out $5 million.
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador sold $100 million
worth of assets to Friede Goldman for $1. They threw in $2.5 million in cash,
and on top of that, the government refused to collect $20 million on a guarantee
for breach of contract. To add insult to injury, it failed to put a safeguard in
that contract in the event that Friede Goldman went bankrupt.
Premier, tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and tell the people of
Marystown, whether that constitute mismanagement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would expect, again, at some point in time that the Leader of the
Opposition will say publicly and elsewhere in the Province, exactly what he said
in Marystown: that a Conservative government would take back the shipyard and
would run it as they did in the glory days. I think it was described, the glory
days of the Progressive Conservative Administration, when the government ran the
shipyard and lost $30 million, and $40 million, and $50 million annually of the
taxpayers dollars. So, I am assuming that the official position of the party,
now led by the great entrepreneurial businessman, is that we should, in fact,
run a business and lose $50 million a year. That is the kind of leadership we
can expect from the Official Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, what we have done is this: We have moved on and focused on the
future. We are working with the unions in Marystown. We are working with the
community council in Marystown and around the area to look at the future of the
yard to secure work so that it can go ahead. I am sure the Leader of the
Opposition would not want to have an incorrect statement on the public record.
To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, Friede Goldman has not gone bankrupt. It has filed
for bankruptcy protection under the laws of the United States of America, which
I know he knows a lot better than I do. He is shaking his head, Mr. Speaker,
acknowledging that I am right this time and he has made a slight mistake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Minister of Finance. The minister announced
yesterday that our Province's deficit sits at $80 million. I ask the minister
if the deficit could be double that by year-end?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have been honest with the people of this Province. As we have
gotten information we have made it clear to the public, right from our position
on thinking about deferring the tax reduction this year; we talked about the
decrease in the federal transfers that we had received. We have been open and
honest with the people of the Province. As we get information we are giving it
to the people of the Province. Our best information right now is a deficit of
$80 million.
Mr. Speaker, we also explained to the people of the Province yesterday that
there are two components to our economy: a provincial component and a federal.
Our provincial economy is strong. I know that bothers the gentleman across the
way, and he would like to tell the people of the Province the sky is falling.
Stop spending your money. Go underground. We are not going there. We have
confidence in the people of the Province but we are also very dependent on the
federal government; and it is that component, specifically, that we are waiting
to hear so that we will have the final numbers at the end of the year.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: And, Mr. Speaker, it will all be there in the budget in
March, as the Premier has identified, when we deliver our budget this year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister had been truthful and upfront with only a $30 million. Minister,
we are now at $80 million at least, and maybe double. We are going in the hole.
If that is not going underground where are we going, I ask the minister?
Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds, even thousands, of government employees
working under temporary contracts with this government, whose contracts are
automatically renewed from year to year. Some have been here for even twenty
years. I want to ask the minister: How many of these employees will lose their
jobs when their contracts expire?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the comment
the member made in his
preamble to the question about being less than truthful
about informing the people of the Province.
We announced, early in the House, that the extra percentage that we had
provided to the public sector would cost an extra $30 million; in this House
last session.
Mr. Speaker, I resent, personally, being accused of being less than truthful
with the people of this Province. It shows a level of desperation. I think that
is clearly obvious.
What I will say, in response to the question, we have made it very clear in
our statement about hiring, that we would look at each job to see whether they
were essential to the functioning of government. Our position has not changed,
unlike their positions over there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister said that there should 't be any correlation between her
statement yesterday of an $80 million deficit and any layoffs that occur. In
fact, she said in an interview on CBC radio this morning: There are no planned
layoffs to address any deficits because we don't know what the deficits will
be.
I want to ask the minister: How does she explain the layoffs that are
occurring in health care because government told health care boards to cut
expenditures?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad he did listen closely to some of the things I said yesterday,
because there is no correlation. I also would like to have the opportunity to
repeat what my colleague, the Minister of Health, said yesterday: We have added
money to the health care budgets. In fact, last year -
MR. SULLIVAN: That is why there are layoffs, you are saying.
AN HON. MEMBER: You said we are wasting $100 million.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: You can't have it both ways.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's
question.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have added $50 million to our budget
this year. Within six weeks we heard from the boards that they were having
difficulty living within an additional $50 million to the budget. We are not
cutting, Mr. Speaker, we are asking them to live within an additional $50
million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this is about being realistic. We live in a
Province with limited fiscal capacity. On one hand, he is commenting about what
we are going to do about the deficit and on the other hand, he has no sense of
reality about what is happening in our Province. None, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier. Wabush Mines began producing iron ore again
this past Monday after a seven week shutdown, but with seventy workers less.
Three years ago Wabush Mines projected forty-two years left in the life of the
project. Today they are predicting thirty.
In August the Premier met with the union president and made a commitment to
get back to him on concerns about problems with high-grade mining. Since then
they have been waiting to hear from the Premier. I ask the Premier: What has he
done to address the concerns expressed to him, and when does he intend to get
back to the union on those matters?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would be the first to acknowledge and agree with the assessment that there
are some difficulties in the iron ore mining industry today. The fact of the
matter is that 55 per cent of all of the iron ore that is mined in Canada comes
out of Labrador West. So, when there is an effect on that industry because of an
economy slowdown generally or because of some other specific things happening,
it does impact upon the industry at Labrador West, and in Wabush as well.
I agree with the member that there are problems in the industry that
unfortunately they, or us, have no control over. What have we done to address
those issues? One, we have met regularly with the representatives of IOC and
Wabush Mines. I have had several meetings in the past two months, the last one
being just a week or ten days ago, from the chief of that organization - IOC -
from Montreal to discuss specific problems. What we have agreed - because it is
in our mutual interest to do so on behalf of the people who particularly live in
that region and on behalf of the economy of the Province generally - to stay in
close touch with each other. They have agreed to keep me informed as to the
status of the industry and we have agreed to maximum our efforts -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.
MR. MATTHEWS: - with respect to any help we can give to ameliorate
anything that can be done in a positive fashion to help the market, but at least
we have both agreed that we will meet and elaborate so that the people who work
at that industry will know what is happening upfront, and as early as they can.
They have agreed -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.
MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) and as soon as possible on their employment
area.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will have the minister know that Wabush is part of Labrador West.
The issue is about proper resource management. We cannot allow high-grade
mining to take place and lower-grade ore left for later. I ask the Premier, will
he direct an investigation into the mining practices of Wabush Mines to ensure
proper mining plans are in place and being adhere to and include the full
involvement of the local union and the workforce into this investigation?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is important to set the record straight on the issue of
high-grading in Wabush because it has been an issue that has been raised by the
union. I agree, it is an important issue. To that specific issue, I, again, have
met with the people from Wabush Mines; they have assured me. My officials in my
department, whom I have asked to look at that issue specially, have assured me.
As a matter of fact, I have addressed these issues in an interview with Doug
Letto of CBC about six months ago. On all accounts, I have an assurance that
there is no high-grading activity taking place in the mining activity in Wabush.
There are standard practices in terms of how mining activities take place
generally within the industry for purposes of meeting market demand, for
purposes of meeting customer specification with respect to certain types of ore
that they need in order to fill the orders that they have on their orders books.
There are certain types of mining practices that are generally accepted and
followed -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.
MR. MATTHEWS: - taking place in Wabush, as there are in other mines in
the Province and in that area. Beyond that there is no high-grading.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rose on Monday, after Question Period, to talk about the rules
that we are governed by in Question Period. It is clear under Beauchesne
- which is the governing document of rules for debate that govern all of
us in this House. It says clearly, "Answers to questions - for the Minister
of Fisheries, if he would like to have a look at it, it is on page 123, 417 -
"Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter
raised and should not provoke debate." What happened here today was an
abuse of Question Period by the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy.
When questions are asked in this House they are supposed to be as brief as
possible, they are not supposed to provoke debate and frankly, Mr. Speaker, they
are supposed to deal with the matter at hand. This is not government's and the
Premier's House. This is the House belonging to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: If we, in this Chamber, are not going to be governed or
govern ourselves by the rules that are often quoted by the Government House
Leader, former Government House Leader, current Premier, then anarchy will
prevail, Mr. Speaker. My point to you is this: In future Question Periods could
you please advise, at your discretion and on your decision obviously, I say to
the Chair, that when the Premier or other ministers are up answering questions,
do so by the rules. This place does not belong to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. I think it is desirable
that the Chair rule on this point. We just had an example where the Member for
Labrador West asked the Premier about a commitment he made to the president of
Wabush Mines' union and the Minister of Mines and Energy got up and talked
about meeting with the Iron Ore Company of Canada officials of Labrador West, in
Montreal. Is that proper, Mr. Speaker? We would like to have a ruling on that.
Is the Premier, who is asked a question, required to answer it or can any
minister answer some other question and pretend that they are complying with the
rules of the House?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, to address the point of order raised by the Member
for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi first, because it is quite obvious that when a member
asks a question that it is not necessarily the person to whom he or she directs
the question who answers. It is the government department, for which that
question is appropriate, that answers the question. You can not dictate as to
who answers the question.
Mr. Speaker, I was about to comment on Question Period myself. I am glad the
hon. member raised the point because the answers given in Question Period are
largely determined by the question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. LUSH: Now, members can be derisive. They can laugh all they like on
the other side but I am one member who sits and listens attentively to the
points raised. I listen to all points of order. I listen to every one.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, a question may be brief but its answer can
encompass the world.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. LUSH: We are asking a question of policy, so members cannot then all
of a sudden sit down and say, I asked a brief question: What is the government's
policy on equalization? What is its policy on Voisey's Bay? and expect a ten
word answer. We have to be sensible.
Mr. Speaker, the question that I wanted to raise is this. The questions
raised by the Leader of the Opposition today were quite unusual in this House. I
have sat here for practically twenty-five years and never heard that approach in
my life. As a matter of fact, the rules of this House do not allow it. The rules
of this House do not allow that approach.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, this is not a courtroom.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: This is not a courtroom, where a lawyer gets up and
interrogates some person in a witness stand for twenty minutes. Questions have
to be brief here. If we were all given that kind of leeway, Mr. Speaker, only
one person would get on Question Period.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the rules of this House do not
allow that kind of questioning where the Leader of the Opposition got up to
prove mismanagement by the government and went all over the globe, went all over
the globe.
Let me suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that questions are supposed - reading
from Beauchesne , I will make two quotes. Reading from 409.(1), "It
must be a question, not an expression of an opinion, representation,
argumentation, nor debate."
Mr. Speaker, I suggest all of these rules were not adhered to.
Under 409.(3), "The question ought to seek information and, therefore,
cannot be based upon a hypothesis, cannot seek an opinion, either legal or
otherwise, and must not suggest its own answer, be argumentative or make
representations."
Mr. Speaker, finally in this representation, Beauchesne , page 410 - to
prove that kind of interrogation, to prove that kind of detailed question,
cannot be permitted in this House.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now a politician and he must ask
questions and adhere to the rules like all of us here in this House, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: There have been lawyers in this House before, Mr. Speaker.
I quote Beauchesne again 410.(8), "Preambles to questions
should be brief and supplementary questions require no
preambles." The hon.
the Leader of the Opposition had a
preamble every time.
The final sentence which tells us that you cannot use the approach that the
Leader of the Opposition used, is 410.(8), "Supplementary questions
should flow from the answers of Ministers." They should flow from the
answers, Mr. Speaker, and not an interrogation.
Mr. Speaker, the final point of order I want to make is in Beauchesne
again, pointing out how the questions were out of order. The Leader of the
Opposition asked the Premier a question when he was in a former portfolio. Mr.
Speaker, we know that is completely out of order. A question cannot be asked of
a minister in a previous portfolio.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition was entirely
out of order in practically all of the questions that he asked today, and
specifically and certainly with respect to the approach that the hon. gentleman
used in Question Period today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the point of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the rules of debate are clear and the
Government House Leader conveniently, I say, conveniently has left out one
section that he has skipped over in the rules. Let me read it. It is also in
410.(5), where Beauchesne says clearly, "The primary purpose of
the Question Period is the seeking of information and calling the Government to
account."
Mr. Speaker, every member, including the Leader of our Party and the Leader
of the Opposition, knows full well that this is not a courtroom; but it is the
people's House and the court of public opinion, and people have a right to
know.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, like the Government House Leader, I
have sat in this Chamber, not quite as long as him, but like him I will say
this: I have asked a series of questions in my roles in this House, as critic,
as former leader, on many occasions in exactly the same way, and this is the
first, the very first time in nine years that I saw a Government House Leader
rise on a point of order saying that we, in questions, trying to hold government
to account - because the current Premier of the Province said yesterday that the
only person talking about mismanagement was our leader. What he did today was
his job. He was holding you and your government to account!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me say this, too: If we are going to
adhere to the rules, then let's all adhere to them equally.
Let me say this to the Government House Leader and to the rest of the
government: When it comes to holding government to account, we will do so and we
will not fail in our responsibility to the people of the Province in doing
exactly that!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Government House Leader has long experience in this House, and when he
quotes from Beauchesne and suggests that the questions being asked must
be specific and asked for information., he is exactly describing the question of
the Member for Labrador West when he asked the Premier about a meeting that he
had and when was he going to get back to the person who he was speaking to. A
very specific and direct question totally in order, absolutely nothing wrong
with it except the fact that the Premier did not answer the question. The
Minister of Mines and Energy answered a completely different question, or made
up his own question and answered it, talking about a totally different subject.
Mr. Speaker, if the rule is going to be applied, it has to applied properly
to both sides of the House, and not just in the words of the Government House
Leader.
MR. SPEAKER: I will hear the hon. the Government House Leader and that is
the final submission.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, again we will deal with the question first raised
by the hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party. The answer to that is
simple. Again, quoting Beauchesne , 420, "The Speaker has stated,
Of course, the Chair will allow a question to be put to a certain Minister;
but it cannot insist that that Minister rather than another should answer it.'."
So, Mr. Speaker, that should solve that.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to holding the government accountable, asking
questions to hold the government accountable, nobody is suggesting that it ought
to be otherwise. Nobody is suggesting that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: I have sat on that side of the House and I know what one is
supposed to do. What I have raised in the House today is that the questions must
follow the rules of this House. What I have said is that the questions of the
Leader of the Opposition were clearly not in order for Question Period; that the
questions advanced by the Leader of the Opposition today, his style defies all
of the rules of this House. I made, also, the point of order that one question
specifically that he directed to the Premier about a previous portfolio was out
of order.
Mr. Speaker, I argued that the process was out of order; plus, a specific
question was out of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: There were, I guess, a number of points of order raised.
There were four points of order that I detected in the comments that were made
by the people who made the submissions. I will deal with the first point of
order that was raised. I believe it was the one on the length of the answers.
There is no doubt that the Chair has reminded members and has brought members'
attention to the fact that questions should be brief; but answers, likewise,
should be brief. On several occasions today the Chair had to interrupt the
ministers who were replying to answers because their answers were rather
lengthy. Now, I have asked members to consider their answers, to consider their
questions, and to, I guess, try to keep them within a reasonable time frame. I
have suggested a minute to a minute and twenty seconds. I have researched this
in other jurisdictions, and in most jurisdictions there is a time limit placed
on a question and an equal time limit placed on a answer. I am asking members to
judge themselves accordingly. I want members to have some leeway in asking
questions and some leeway in answering, but if it requires that I set a time
limit then I am prepared to do that on questions and answers.
To the second point of order, I believe the hon. the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi raised a point of order that the question was not answered by
the appropriate minister. I just want to remind him that questions are directed
to government. Government will determine who answers the question. That is not a
point of order.
The hon. the Government House Leader raised two points of order, I believe:
One, that all questions today that were asked by the hon. the Opposition House
Leader were out of order. He mentioned specifically one question that was
directed, I believe, to the Premier about a previous portfolio. That question
certainly would have been out of order. A question must be within the
administrative competence of the government. The minister to whom the question
is directed is responsible to the House for his or her present ministry and not
for any decision taken in a previous portfolio.
The other point of order that he raised, that all questions were out of
order, I will take that under advisement. I will certainly review the Hansard,
review the submissions that were made, take it under advisement and report back
to the House.
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER: It is Private Members' Day. We will go directly to the
private member's motion.
The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by reading the motion which I am putting
forward for debate today.
WHEREAS research and development is an important factor in the economic
development of this Province; and
WHEREAS there is funding available through various federal programs to
promote research and development;
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports efforts to access
research and development funding for the advancement of economic development in
this Province.
Mr. Speaker, some would ask: Why bring a motion like this forward to debate
in the House of Assembly? The motion may seem on the surface to be motherhood,
something that goes without saying, something everybody would agree with. Up
until a few months ago, that might have been true.
When I brought this motion forward earlier this week, members of the
Opposition were saying they would pass it without debate, and indicated that
they, too, would support it; but I think it is important that we bring forward
this motion today and that we debate it fully. The reason I say this is because
of the politically-motivated comments of the Leader of the Opposition -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: - the confusion that has been created by his irresponsible
comments. Normally the support for a motion such as this could be assumed, but
in the current circumstances I think it is important that we debate this issue.
MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).
MR. SWEENEY: I would like to say to the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis
that I am entitled to speak here today. You were not allowed to speak during
Question Period.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St.
Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member who was just on his feet referred to me, on this side of the
House, as speaking to that individual. I was making a comment to the former
Premier of the Province.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?
Mr. Speaker, I made a comment across the House to the former Premier of the
Province, not the hon. member who was speaking, and I ask him to withdraw his
comments.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.
MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, may I continue?
Back in September, I was appalled and amazed to hear that the Leader of the
Official Opposition wanted to turn down federal funding, federal funding that
would help advance the economy of this Province.
Newfoundland and Labrador has huge research and development needs, a point
which was repeatedly raised during our Jobs and Growth consultations. If we do
not access federal funding, the benefits will flow to other provinces of Canada.
Health care funding comes from another source, namely from the Canada Health
and Social Transfer program. It is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition has
a lack of understanding of how federal funding works, or he is trying to play
politics with this very important issue.
Emerging new economic opportunities in the Province must be supported by
enhanced public and private sector research and development. Members need only
look to the recent past to realize the potential benefits of such funding. I
bring to mind the federal government's commitment when they wisely invested in
research and development activities related to Newfoundland's offshore oil
resources. As a result today, we have a thriving industry. I would like to ask
the Leader of the Opposition: Is he suggesting that the economic wealth and
employment growth this industry is creating in not worth the funding that got it
kick-started?
The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, perhaps more so than the
government of any other province, has been emphasizing the need for more health
care funding, but the Opposition's position is not about health care, it is
not about Inco, and it is not about Voisey's Bay. It is about playing
politics.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: The politics of opposition, opposing everything. If this is
the kind of obviously politically-motivated actions we can expect from the
Leader of the Opposition, then I shudder to think what might come next. There is
a time, I say to the hon. members, when politicians, no matter what party they
represent, should put aside political bantering and start to think about the
best interests of the people of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SWEENEY: I am very disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition has
decided not to take a responsible position on this, and many other issues
besides. I am disappointed that he has chosen to continue to play politics with
the issues of today. I am sure that the people of this Province expect more from
those people who elected them.
It is incredible, that the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition would
actually refuse federal investment that is so critical to the continued economic
development of this Province. The Opposition, instead of being critical of
federal spending here, should be encouraged that the federal government is
considering an increased role in meeting the Province's research and
development needs.
Mr. Speaker, Inco has applied for federal funding under the Technology
Partnerships Canada program. The goal of this program is to encourage economic
growth within Canada through strategic investment in research, development and
technology. Funding support is available for industrial research, prototype or
pilot development, and studies in support of projects. The federal government
has budgeted to invest in this economic initiative. As of October 31, 2001,
Technology Partnerships Canada had invested in 136 projects across Canada. The
program has injected $1.6 billion into Canadian technology innovation and
created in excess of 30,000 jobs.
What did this Province get? Well, Newfoundland and Labrador, quite by
contrast, has accessed only $5.9 million of the TPC funding.
AN HON. MEMBER: If they had their way, we would get none.
MR. SWEENEY: I am sad to say, yes, that is probably the case.
They have created ninety-two jobs. Our Province has shared in only 0.4 per
cent of the total investment and only 0.3 of total job creation. Money not used
in Newfoundland has gone and will not go to any other program area. It has
supported and will continue to support technology innovation in other provinces.
For instance, in Ontario there were in excess of 14,000 jobs created; in Quebec,
in excess of 11,000 jobs created. The program has funded projects led by a
variety of companies and, I might add, they include wealthy multinationals just
as Bombardier, Dow Chemicals, and Falconbridge. Such companies typically have
the internal resources for long-term research and development. They invest large
sums to explore new technology options and bring the most promising to the brink
of commercial application, creating badly needed jobs.
Mr. Speaker, the global economy is becoming increasingly technology-based. To
compete effectively, our Province must look to the future, invest in
leading-edged technology and train our people to work within it. Stakeholders
from all sectors sent a strong message during our Jobs and Growth consultations.
Research and innovation drives industrial and economic growth. R&D, research
and development, figures prominently in the Province's Renewal Strategy for
Jobs and Growth.
The federal government, as well, has placed increasing emphasis on technology
innovation, providing supports and incentives across sectors as diverse as
agriculture, shipbuilding and aerospace. Technology innovation is advancing
Canadian industrial and economic growth. Newfoundland and Labrador must
participate or be left behind.
The proposed pilot facility that Inco is talking about would establish the
world's only hydrometallurgy test plant here in our Province, creating a
global centre of excellence for mining technology. I do not think any person,
any of the people we serve, would turn their backs to that.
Development of Voisey's Bay, using a design-confirmed hydromet processing
facility would put us on the forefront of new technologies; because with one
innovative move, others follow quickly. We have to be cognizant of the message
we are sending out there. The pilot plant itself would train some 200 people in
chemical, process engineering and metallurgy, contributing to the Twenty-First
Century workforce of this Province.
A pilot hydromet facility for the Voisey's Bay project would not be a
concession. It would be an enhancement to the project. Take the example of the
National Research Council's Institute for Marine Dynamics. Established in St.
John's in the early days of the Hibernia project, this facility attracted
large scale public and private investment that advanced resident petroleum
technology capability. It jump-started the Province's offshore oil and gas
industry. The Institute for Marine Dynamics has tested and refined and confirmed
design processes not only for the Hibernia but for Terra Nova and other
potential offshore bases. It has also gained an international reputation for
leading-edge research, and research and development that includes everything
straight to racing yachts. They are in demand. Clients from around the world
compete for design confirmation and environmental modeling services.
We talk about the hydromet facility. The hydromet facility could evolve in
the same way, providing research and development for other projects within and
outside of this Province. It could provide innovation, education, and employment
opportunities far beyond the Voisey's Bay project. It could also establish
valuable research and developmental infrastructure. In additional to the mining
and processing facilities that would be put in place for the full-scale project,
there is no reason I can think of to oppose Inco's application for continuing
with this project. As a matter of fact, I think there is every reason to support
it.
Mr. Speaker, having made these comments, I look forward to hearing from
others in this debate, especially the Leader of the Opposition. I would like for
him to explain his position - his position today, anyway - tell us where he
stands on this issue, and tell us why he said what he did on this issue back in
September.
I also look forward to hearing from the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
Maybe he, too, can explain his position. Maybe he can explain why playing
politics is more important than representing the people who elected him.
Mr. Speaker, thank you very, very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to the private member's
resolution today. I do have to preface a few opening comments, however. I came
prepared today to talk about the: THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of
Assembly... - and it bears repeating, because he did not repeat it, because the
spirit and intent of his motion is contained in the: THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED
that this House of Assembly support efforts....
I say to the Premier, you will get all the answers, Sir. If you would sit
down and listen, you will get all the answers. Our point of view will be very
clear. What is not going to cut it is the shipment of ore from this Province,
which is different from the mandate of the 1999 Red Book. That is what is not
going to cut it, I say to the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly
support efforts to access research and development funding for the advancement
of economic development in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, who could not support the advancement of research and
development monies for this Province, that would advance many industries?
The Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace primarily aimed his attack at the
Leader of the Opposition. The private member's resolution should have read:
The anti-Leader of the Opposition resolution - because that is what he talked
about.
Let me deal first of all with the spirit and intent of his resolution. Then I
want to deal with his comments vis--vis the $100 million grant to Inco.
First of all, it is very clear that this party stands in support of accessing
research and development money for this Province. As a matter of fact, in the
1999 policy manual we talked about that, that we would aggressively pursue
opportunities for research and development in aquaculture, in environment,
technology, assisting in new environmental technology associated with waste
management, with cleaner water, proper disposal of sewage systems, et cetera.
We even went further. We said in 1999, and it stands today, that a PC
government, because of the lack of research and development - not only lack of,
in the federal fisheries and science, but the absolute gutting and cutting back
of the federal budgets to the point where the DFO scientists today will tell
you, and they have told you, the amount of allocations they have for science is
not even enough to monitor if there is enough salmon, in many instances, coming
back up our rivers. That is how far DFO has limited its own research and
development. So what did we do in response? We put forward a notion, a concept,
a solid policy which said a PC government will establish a permanent,
independent, fisheries research institute to conduct basic research and monitor
federal activity by analyzing their data and methods.
Mr. Speaker, we all know the realities of budgets, of political life, both
federally and provincially. Here is one reality, when it comes to research and
development funds made available through any host of activities - some of the
programs that the member just talked about - are allocations made on a
provincial-by-provincial basis. This is what he said - and I have the same
information, the same statistics - that this year there was only $5.9 million
which came to Newfoundland from the Technology Partnerships Canada Program. Now
what do you think of $5.9 million? He said it was shameful. He did not tell us
what the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology was doing - he is the
Parliamentary Assistant or Secretary to that department - to increase that $5.9
million. We did not hear from the Minister of Environment today, or he did not
tell us what the Department of Environment was doing to increase that
allocation. He knows full well that the reason there is $5.9 million coming to
this Province - which is below the average, a little higher than some but below
the average - is because of enormous grants to companies like Inco.
There is not a carte blanche statement in the world in effect for any policy
- and the member should know this as well - that can say that we support any and
all programs, or any and all funding, for any and all projects, no matter what.
That is the type of thinking, that is the type of mentality, and that is the
type of history that has gotten this Province $6 billion in debt. That is the
type of thinking and mentality that has put $3.5 billion debt load on pension
funds. That is the type of thinking and mentality that produced chocolate
factories and others that did not work. When we talk about research and
development projects, absolutely, we support the spirit and intent of this
agreement, but we exclusively reserve the right to pass our judgement on each
and every project.
Mr. Speaker, I happen to have a list today of the companies which received
money from that program. I do not see many Newfoundland and Labrador companies
on it: $24.9 million to Messier-Dowty Inc. - that's not a Newfoundland and
Labrador company; CaseBank Technologies Inc., $3.2 million; SemBioSys Genetics
Inc., $5.5 million; World Heart Corporation, $9.98 million. I am not taking away
the fact that these are worthwhile projects. What I am saying - and I can
provide the list and table it for the member - is that there are not many
Newfoundland companies on it. The question is, why? Why shouldn't there be?
The answer is simply this: because we have not been aggressive enough.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I would like to see the
tabling of all of the requests that his department has made, or had made, to
this fund. I would like to see a tabling of all of the requests that this
minister in the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology has made to another
program for smaller businesses under the Industrial Research Assistance Program.
What the shame is here is that a member stands up on the government side and
admits we only have $5.9 million, and it is not good enough, but now the Leader
of the Opposition - this motion is not about research and development money it
is about an attempt - which they believe somehow - to embarrass the Leader of
the Opposition, the leader of our party, and ourselves. It is not going to
happen because our policy on this was well thought out, driven by consensus at a
caucus table and publicly articulated, and here is why -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Here is why we have taken the position. First of all, who
gave Inco $100 million? The federal minister - they applied for it, but who is
considering giving Inco the $100 million? The former Premier, now federal
Industry Minister. I am just stating some facts. You are welcome to stand up in
debate.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I'm going to, don't worry.
MR. E. BYRNE: Great, we will look forward to your debate for the
Province.
In all honesty, when you take - and I have the file here - every comment on
Voisey's Bay that Inco officials have made, every public release, every
statement by the Premier, every statement by a minister, every statement by a
member in this House, they are here. This bears mentioning, in 1996 it was not a
hydromet facility we were talking about, it was a full scale smelter and
refinery. The chairperson of Inco at the time, Mr. Sopko, said: The Voisey's
Bay find is so rich, so vast, such a find that it is the jewel in Inco's
nickle discovery or nickle supply that the cobalt and cooper alone will pay for
a full scale refinery and smelting complex, and the nickle in the ovoid
essentially will be pure profit. That was said publicly, Mr. Speaker. Now, when
the Leader of our Province puts out a release that was generated, discussed and
debated to the people of the Province about why Inco should get $100 million, it
was based on that.
Let me ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology this: Do you think
you are going to get more than $5.9 million for other companies if Inco gets
$100 million because you said that is going to Newfoundland? Where is that $100
million going to end up? How far ahead would we be if we had half of that to put
into other industries? How far ahead would the aquaculture industry be? How far
ahead would the operation in Ramea, for example, and the seaweed investment that
they have made in promoting and marketing that around the world? How far would
we be from that point of view?
Mr. Speaker, it is clear, our leader will speak to this motion. He will speak
to this motion in this afternoon's debate, but I want to say this - this was a
speech that he made in the Clarenville Chamber of Commerce, September 26, 2001,
after the fact: "If the federal government wants to invest in research and
development - and I'm all for research and development - then let it provide
money for projects that would not go ahead otherwise or for companies that
cannot afford to expand and innovate as they need to do to compete." That
is what he said. We stand by that, each and everyone of us!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: "Let the government invest $100,000 in each of 1,000
companies so they can grow and diversify and compete and employ Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians in high-calibre enterprises." That is what this Leader of
the Opposition said. Do not take him out of context today when I am around or
any member of this caucus is around, and we are pleased you raised this issue.
Just in case you did not hear it, he said: "But do not invest that $100
million in Inco to build the facility they promised and can well afford to
finance out of their own deep treasury." This is a company whose annual
sales were two-and-a-half times bigger than our provincial budget last year.
"Imagine, on a regional basis, if 20 companies in this district alone
received..." in the Bonavista-Trinity area alone, received $100,000 each.
What could that do for the economic stimulation of rural Newfoundland and
Labrador?
Mr. Speaker, the Premier has just indicated - keep talking, Eddie, he said.
He has no worry about me holding him to account. We did that on many occasions
before. We will all do it when necessary.
The point is this: When it comes to the Voisey's Bay file it is very clear
what people already know about him. They know this: That this is a government
that campaigned on a promise. That the former Premier of this Province went
before the mikes the night he called a general election and said: I respectfully
ask for your vote to continue the job, to finish the negotiations. Who do you
wish to negotiate for you and finish the job on the Voisey's Bay file and the
Lower Churchill file? Where are those files today?
He also said, repeatedly, as did many other members in this House - and like
I said, we have it here. In one statement he actually said that the smelter, the
mine, the refinery, all of it, has to run concurrently, and if it does not, it
will not go ahead. He said, and I will quote: In other words, it must be a
full-meal deal. In their own Red Book, he talked about: Not an ounce of ore will
leave the Province - in this House, about concentrate. It will not leave, not a
spoonful, not an ounce. That is what he said in the Member for Ganders'
headquarters during the election - reiterated it up until the time that he left.
What people do understand, I say to the Premier, is when the Minister of
Mines and Energy stood yesterday in this House and said, with the straightest
face possible: that there are only two outstanding issues: The movement of ore,
and for how long. Sooner or later, if that deal proceeds, you will be judged by
it, as a government. That's fair enough. You will be judged. I say to the
government, you have no mandate to do it; none whatsoever. No mandate, and you
know it.
Mr. Speaker, let me say in conclusion, with respect to this issue in terms of
research and development; our party has no trouble supporting research and
development. We have not, in any way, shape, or form, ever been against research
and development, but we will say this -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) press release since I got here.
MR. E. BYRNE: What is that, Mr. Minister?
AN HON. MEMBER: That you are not against (inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to research and development -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time has expired.
MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, just for a second.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members.
When it comes to research and development our policies are clear, our history
is clear, but we exclusively reserve the right to judge those projects where
they get funded on a case by case basis because if we did not, it would be
irresponsible not to do so.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is an important issue, and the previous speaker, the Opposition House
Leader, began and concluded his commentary by trying to suggest that the
Opposition will vote for this particular motion because they have no problem at
all with research and development. I am glad to hear that. As a matter of fact,
it is in the Blue Book as one of the things that the party opposite supports. It
is right in there as part of the mandate. I am assuming, unless they have
changed their mind about that today, it is still part of their policy.
Mr. Speaker, he is trying to be too cute by half, as is the whole group, with
respect to - then speaking for his fifteen minutes about Voisey's Bay while
saying that this particular motion has nothing to do with Voisey's Bay.
Everybody knows that it has everything to do with Voisey's Bay because the
company that is hoping to do business in Newfoundland and Labrador, is Inco with
respect to Technology Partnerships Canada.
We have a real request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has
not made, but a company has made because they would like to develop a newer,
more environmentally friendly, more economic, more efficient, more energy
efficient technology, for use in this Province. While it is true that not all of
that $100 million will get spent in Newfoundland and Labrador - because it is
research and development - the benefits of it are the fact that it might be able
to let us go ahead with a project sooner, rather than later, and then we will
get all of the benefits, Mr. Speaker.
The rule issue is this, there is no difference between the Opposition - and I
have heard it stated many times - and ourselves. As recently as today, there is
a letter in The Telegram from the Mines and Energy critic saying our
mandate, with respect to Voisey's Bay, is to have the ore turned into a
finished nickle product in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is exactly what we
are trying to accomplish. There is absolutely no fundamental difference of
opinion between the Opposition and the government, with respect to that issue.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of things, just for the record, in this debate. I
believe that the Opposition will acknowledge with speakers in debate - and I
hope the Leader of the Opposition is one of them - recognizes that when a
Partnerships Program, that whether or not that is granted the money that is
asked for is not available for health care; it is not available for education;
it is not available for small business support; it is in a program base.
There is nobody over there who was in a former government - nobody that
actually has run a government - but they have been in the Estimates. They have
challenged governments. They do understand that when budget headings are put
there the Auditor General suggests that if you say you are going to spend the
money on research and development - guess what you are supposed to spend it on?
Research and development. You cannot present a budget - and one of their
favorite people seems to be the Auditor General. The Auditor General says that
if you say you are going to spend so many billion dollars on health, you should
spend it on health. If you say you are going to spend a couple of billion
dollars a year on research and development, guess what you are suppose to spend
it on? Research and development. It is not available for other uses.
There are other budget items for health care. We have managed to get the
health care budget increased but it is still not enough, and there is no
difference of opinion between ourselves and the Opposition that more money is
thing for post-secondary education; the same thing for social services; the same
thing for child welfare, and all of the other things that they can help and
assist us with under the National Child Benefit and so on.
Mr. Speaker, that party who obviously lives and dies by everything that the
Auditor General says, would clearly understand that an amount of money voted for
research and development cannot be spent for something else. Guess what? It is
going to be spent somewhere in Canada for research and development.
There is a direct request before that particular government from a company
that hopes to develop a project here, saying: Would you grant us some of the
money like you have for Bombardier, like you have for other major corporations,
so that we can develop a new technology completely in-line with the criteria
which says for environmental technologies? The funds are for the development of
sustainable alternatives, pollution prevention, pollution abatement, pollution
remediation. This process is to create less pollution than traditional
technologies. Also, under the industrial component; for developing new processes
or in bringing about significant improvement to processes to make them more
efficient. That is what the money is for and that is what the request is all
about, and the Leader of the Opposition has said: Do not grant that request.
That is what the Leader of the Opposition has said in Newfoundland and Labrador.
is that there is a request that you are going to give $100 million to somebody
for research and development. You are not allowed to give it to anybody else for
health care, education, or small business development. It is nice to talk about
all that but this $100 million is going to be given to some company or
corporation to meet the criteria for better environmental technology or better
processes to make something better today than it has been in the past.
Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, the same program has been used in the past
for cable TV, which the Leader of the Opposition would know something about,
because cable TV has developed many new technologies over the years, and several
of the companies have applied to this program and have been granted money so
that they could have better cable TV today than they had the last time. So, that
is okay. I heard no objection about that, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure we will
not.
We have had the Leader of the Opposition say that federal money for
Newfoundland and Labrador is good any time. It was on Open Line just a week or
so ago. Get federal money in Newfoundland and Labrador because Senator Rompkey
had said: I do not believe what I have just heard. For the first time in my
thirty years in politics, Senator Rompkey said, we have a Newfoundland-based
not spend it on a company that might do something in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The first time in thirty years it has ever been said, Mr. Speaker. It has
been said, and there is no way to deny that has been said.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to make sure we do not wiggle out of this today, I want to
move this amendment. I am sure the Speaker will rule it in order. The amendment
will be, in the resolution - and everybody will understand why, even including
the Opposition - the amendment, to make the point, is this, because we will have
a standing vote on this at the end of the day to see who is for and against it:
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports efforts to access
research and development funding for the advancement of economic development in
this Province... - which the Opposition House Leader has said they absolutely
will support, have always supported it. Now, he said, on a case-by-case basis we
want to examine it. We want to reserve that right. So reserve the right to also
support or deny support for a resolution that will continue, by amendment, moved
by me, seconded by the Government House Leader, that will say: ...such as
research and development funding for hydrometallurgic technology.
Mr. Speaker, now speak to that motion. That is the amendment that I have
moved, seconded by my colleague, the Member for Terra Nova, the Government House
Leader, just as an example, because they are for research and development. It
does not change the intent of the motion, but even the Opposition House Leader
has said: That is what this is; this an attack. This is not a debate about
research and development.
It is a debate about research and development. It is calling the Opposition
and all of us to say: Do we stand for this or not? Or are we going to be very
selective and explain why it is that research and development is okay for cable
television, research and development is okay for other sectors, research and
development is okay for a multinational, wealthy, deep-pocket corporation like
Bombardier, because that is how Inco has been described in Clarenville, I
understand, by the Leader of the Opposition, that they should not need any money
because they have so much money of their own so do not give them any. I guess
Rogers Cable did not have any money either when they got some research. They do
not have deep pockets, I guess. So, Mr. Speaker, you have these particular
issues.
Let me mention one other thing, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition
will speak to this. Let me mention one other thing. In Clarenville, the Leader
of the Opposition went talking about Inco and Voisey's Bay. He did say this,
Mr. Speaker, because the record is clear; we have transcripts. He did say, in
the reference that the Opposition House Leader said, that they do not need the
money. They have deep pockets and our position is that we will demand
processing. We will demand processing or there will be no mining lease.
A week later now, here in St. John's at the Board of Trade, there were some
words added: We will demand processing if it is economically feasible. If it is
economically feasible. Now, Mr. Speaker, some people might not pay much
attention to those words but I do, and a lot of other people will because they
will be reminded that in one case there was no qualification, that the
Opposition will say we will demand processing, period, end of sentence. A week
later, in a speech to a different audience in a different town, the demand is:
Processing if economically feasible.
Mr. Speaker, what is the position? Is it, there is going to have to be
processing anyway? Because the second one would lead you to believe that if Inco
says it is not economically feasible, then they will not demand it.
They really do have to make up their minds, come clean, and stand firm and
clear, just as today we are asking everybody in the House to stand firm and say:
development program that they will spend, are mandated and must spend, on
research and development because the Auditor General for Canada will condemn
them if they take the money that they put in a budget and said they were going
to spend on research and development and spend it on health care. As laudable as
that is, they will be condemned by the Auditor General because, if they were
going to take the money and spend it on health care, they were supposed to say
so in their budget. They were not supposed to mislead the people that there was
going to be a billion and some-odd dollars for research and development but we
will pretend that in our budget and then part way through the year we will
switch, we will change our minds, and we will spend it on health care, or we
will spend it on education, or we will spend it on small business development,
which is the plea of the Leader of the Opposition: Why don't we take $100
million and give it to a bunch of small companies?
Well, there is a program for that too, Mr. Speaker. There is a program for
small business development, and they do it through a whole group and series of
agencies. There are companies in Newfoundland and Labrador that apply for it and
avail of it every single day of the week.
All we are saying is that with this amendment, and I will ask if you will
rule it in order or not, just as an example, we ask this Legislature today to
support the private member's motion so proudly put forward by the Member for
Carbonear-Harbour Grace and just add, as an example, that we all support efforts
to access research and development funding for the advancement of economic
development in this Province, because this surely will. Because if the Voisey's
Bay project gets developed and if we get full processing of nickel ore to
finished nickel, which is what the Opposition say they stand for, and which is
what I know we stand for - there is no doubt on this side of what we stand for.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: We stand for a finished nickel product.
If this research and development can help and assist in that project
happening sooner rather than later, then the economic development that we are
talking about - because we are looking to support access to research and
development funding for the advancement of economic development - if the
research and development works, there will certainly be a great deal of economic
development in Newfoundland and Labrador sooner rather than later. Otherwise, I
guess we will hear the Opposition suggest why it is that they are now ready to
say they will demand that it be finished to a nickel product if it is
economically feasible. Because those are the words that were said here in St.
John's to the Board of Trade by the Leader of the Opposition, wanting everyone
to think that he is a reasonable - that he is not unreasonable - businessman. As
a matter of fact, he used that phrase in his speech, that he is a reasonable
businessman.
Is he reasonable, which means that Inco can do just about anything if they
say it is not economically feasible? Or is he going to make the kind of demand
that he said in Clarenville, that only if it is a finished product, whether it
is feasible or not, is it going ahead. Because those are two completely
different stances.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The House will now take a short recess to look at the
amendment and to determine whether or not it is in order.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has reviewed the amendment in consultation with the Clerks of the
House and we deem the amendment to be in order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Just in this circumstance, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of
everybody: When the House recesses on occasion, like we have just done, is that
an automatic ten minute break or just when the bells ring that everyone is
supposed to be here? I just wondered for clarification.
MR. SPEAKER: I am advised by the Chair that the ten minute rule applies
only on Division and that with members - we were ready to start with a member of
the Opposition in the presence of the House and we were just in the process of
sending someone out to the official Opposition to ask him to come forward.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough. Obviously there was an oversight made. We were
here in a timely fashion, but we were of the understanding - so fair enough. I
appreciate the comments by the Government House Leader and those made by the
Chair.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the motion made by the member
for Harbour Grace on an important issue related to the expenditure of public
money in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have to say, Mr. Speaker,
I listened to the debate and I was disturbed by a number of things that I heard,
particularly the member himself indicating the amount of expenditures of this
research and development money that is spent in the Province. The information
supplied by the member, in fact, underscores this particular point, that this
Technology Partnerships Canada program had a $1.6 billion investment of which
less than one-half of one per cent of the total was spent in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
What is even more astounding, Mr. Speaker, is that of the jobs created by
this program, over 30,000 jobs, well, guess what? Nearly 26,000 of them were
created in Ontario and Quebec. So in access of 80 per cent of the jobs created
by this research and development program were created in only two provinces, and
the last time I looked Ontario and Quebec, between them, do not have 80 per cent
of the population of Canada. Mr. Speaker, we have a great deal of disparity
here.
I note the Minister of Government Services and Lands, who used to be the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, say that is their equalization program.
Mr. Speaker, the equalization program is one program that operates, or is
supposed to operate, to the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador and other
provinces for a time. It does not operate that way and it does not operate
properly. If the minister is saying that the equalization program is for us and
the research and development program is for them, I have to disagree. I hope
that is not what the minister was saying when he was saying that it is their
equalization program.
What I want to say, Madam Speaker - I see a change in the Speaker - I do not
want to see this continue and I think we have to ensure that we get a proper
share of the benefits of this program and other federal programs. It is
astounding that we now have less than one-third of one per cent of the jobs from
this program created in the Province of Newfoundland, and yet the minister
responsible for this program is the former Premier of this Province, who is the
Minister of Industry, Trades and Technology. That I say, Madam Speaker, is a
shame and a disgrace, that this Province gets so little of that money.
Madam Speaker, what I was shocked and surprised about as well was the words
of the Premier, when the Premier talked about the hydromet process and the fact
that an application was before the Technology Partnerships Canada, that this was
the only application from Newfoundland. Imagine! That is what the Premier said:
The only application there. What I want to know is: What is this government
doing to promote research and development in this Province if the only
application is from Inco, an Ontario company?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: Where was the minister of Industry, Trade and Technology out
promoting research and development in this Province? Where? Where is that coming
from, Mr. Speaker?
MR. MATTHEWS: We will find out in a minute.
MR. HARRIS: Well, the Minister of Mines and Energy, who should know the
difference, says we will find out in a minute. His Premier just said that there
was only one application, only one.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is not accurate.
MR. HARRIS: It is not accurate. The Minister of Finance says it is not
that accurate. Well, I will leave it for the Premier to correct, and the people
who read Hansard, and the people who watch television, to decide whether the
Premier said it or not, and let the Premier decide whether it is accurate or
not, or someone else answer for him. I am sure the minister will have an
opportunity in this debate to tell us how many applications and how wrong the
Premier might be.
I was disturbed to hear to the Premier say that
MS BETTNEY: On a point of order, Madam Speaker..
MADAM SPEAKER (Ms M. Hodder): A point of order, the hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I feel that I must rise on a point of order to address some of the comments
that were just made about the fact that in this Province this is the only
application that was made. That is not correct and that is not what the Premier
said. The Premier said it is one of the applications that are in, and we have
many applications in.
Madam Speaker, I should just point out, as a point of clarification, that
Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic have many applications
in and many of them are with private sector companies.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Of course there is no point of order.
The Speaker heard what the Premier said and people will have to judge for
themselves whether what the Premier said was that it was the only application
there or not.
Madam Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador needs to have more
research and development.
PREMIER GRIMES: A point of order, Madam Speaker..
MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.
PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Madam Speaker, to make sure that there is no
confusion or misunderstanding: if I did use the word only in my address then, as
I have always done in this Legislature, if I have made a mistake, I apologize. I
do understand from the minister that there are several applications. I will tell
you one thing, Madam Speaker, there is only one that everybody in Newfoundland
and Labrador knows about and it is this one with Inco about R&D for
hydrometallurgic technology. Everybody knows about this one. I can't wait to
hear the Leader of the Opposition talk about it today.
MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I appreciate that the Premier has made a mistake and wishes to acknowledge
that. That is what we would expect him to do, Madam Speaker, but I think the
point is still made properly by the Member for Harbour Grace that the number of
jobs that this Province receives, based on the amount of the total investment of
Industry Canada, is minuscule and the percentage of our share in Newfoundland
and Labrador of those jobs is minuscule as well.
I am glad to hear that there are more applications, but obviously to date
there has not been more success. There has not been more success than we have
seen to date that we should have. We should have at least 2 per cent or 3 per
cent of those jobs, based on our population, and perhaps more than that based on
our need and based on the fact that, in this Province, we do have, in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, advanced technologies. We do have
advanced industry. We do have industrial development that can benefit from
research and development funds, and we do know that with research and
development comes more jobs because you get a higher level of technology, you
get a higher level of productivity, you get a higher level of exports and
profitability, and you can make your economy grow faster and better with higher
paying jobs. It is an area which, I would submit, has been sadly neglected by
this government and previous governments, and something that has to be
corrected.
I have to say that whether it is the motion, which is almost a motherhood
motion, I suppose:
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly support efforts to
access research and development funding for the advancement of economic
development in this Province.
Madam Speaker, of course we would, but we wonder what those efforts are. We
wonder what those efforts are of this government. It is not the government
applying to Industry Canada. It is Inco applying to Industry Canada, not the
government. Certainly, if Inco applies to Industry Canada to get money, we would
support it. Of course. Any company that wanted to do research and development in
this Province is entitled to apply and access the money and carry out the
research.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: All we are talking about here is: Are companies entitled to
carry out research and development in this Province? Of course they are. Whether
it is Inco testing out a particular process, or whether it is an aquaculture
firm, research and development to a new product or a new strain of an
aquacultural product or a new biotechnology product, research and development is
important and it should be conducted. Whether it gets turned into products or
whether it actually becomes a process, that is another question. That is a
different question that has to be answered by someone else in a different forum;
but I, for one, am not going to object to money being spent on research and
development, provided it is something that is deserving of research and not just
a flim-flam project or a way for a corporation to get money for their coffers.
I do have to say, Madam Speaker, we are talking about Inco, I suppose. The
subtext of this motion is about Inco, and we have heard the Premier say a few
things about Inco that have kind of surprised me in the last couple of days. The
ore is worth nothing in the ground, I heard him say the other day; the ore is
worth nothing in the ground. I somehow remember a couple of years ago that Inco
spent $5 billion to acquire the rights to mine that ore. It may not have gained
the Province very much when Inco gave somebody else $5 billion to acquire the
rights to it, but it was certainly worth a lot of money, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, there is another point I do want to address. We are talking
about the processing of Inco ore and the processing of nickel. I have to agree
with the Premier on a particular point because I happened to read the same
speech that the Leader of the Opposition gave to the Board of Trade. It was on
their Web site; anyone could read it and see it. I happened to hone in on that
very same phrase, and I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I have
a serious concern about that -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: - the phrase that: nickel will only be required to process if
it is proven to be economically feasible.
He said that, and I do not know if he knew about the argument and the debate
that we had in this House last year about the Iron Ore Company of Canada wanting
to process iron ore pellets in a pellet plant down in Sept-Iles. The debate that
went on for the last two or three years in Labrador West and in this Province as
to whether or not this government was going to permit Inco to build a pellet
plant in Sept-Iles, and not in Labrador West, was all about a clause as to
whether or not it was economically feasible. This government took the position
that the pellet plant in Labrador West was not economically feasible, and
therefore they allowed that to be built in Sept-Iles and ship ore out of this
Province to be processed in Sept-Iles.
This government allowed that on the basis that they were bound, they said, by
words that said that they had the right to do that if it was not economically
feasible to do it in Labrador West. That was what hung this government in that
particular situation.
I do not agree with them. I think that the Member for Labrador West and the
committee for Labrador West were right, that it was impossible for this company
to prove that it was not economically feasible to do it in Labrador West. I say
that those are dangerous words to put in a document and a contract when you are
dealing with the likes of Inco or IOC or the Australians or whoever owns IOC at
the moment. Those are very dangerous words.
I said to our convention - it did not get the same publicity as the members'
opposite convention in Labrador West because we did not have the levels of
intrigue, Madam Speaker. We did not have federal leadership campaigns going on,
on the floor of our convention. We did not get the same kind of coverage, but
what I did say - our entire caucus was there, and I have to say proudly that the
entire caucus was behind me as leader of the party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: I said to our convention that we have to be very careful that
the position - if they are going to criticize, if the Tory Party is going to
criticize the government on Inco, we have to be very careful, because their
position looks surprisingly like the position of the Liberal government on the
question of IOC and the issue of whether or not there should be a pellet plant
in Sept-Iles.
I have to say that I agree with the Premier, it is a very incautious
statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, and I am sure that he will
explain to the House what he meant when he said that, when he gets an
opportunity to speak.
I do have to say that this motion, obviously - and I think anybody who reads
this motion in the context of the debate in this Province today knows that this
is kind of a loaded motion, it is attempted to be a loaded motion. I see it,
Madam Speaker, as an opportunity for us to say: Yes, we do want research and
development to take place in the Province of Newfoundland. What happens to the
product of that research and development is something that is another question.
That is another question for another time.
The real concern that I have is that there is not enough research and
development going on in Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not think that this
government is making enough effort to ensure that we have our fair share of
research and development money from Industry Canada. We do not have our fair
share of other monies from other programs in Canada. I think that is underscored
by the statistics put forth by the Member for Harbour Grace, that 80 per cent of
the jobs from research and development go to the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec
and very few, ninety-two out of 30,700 jobs, to the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the hon. member that his time is up.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, just for one minute to finish?
MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MADAM SPEAKER: Leave granted.
MR. HARRIS: That is the important point that can and should be made today
in this debate. Certainly we support the notion, certainly we support research
and development in Newfoundland and Labrador, but I want to say that we have to
have more research and development in Newfoundland and Labrador.
MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to this
motion this afternoon, but before I do so, I would like to take this opportunity
to welcome the Leader of the Opposition into his seat and to say to him that I
have heard a good many times that he was going to - he has dipped his toe in a
few times. I want to tell him that he is now in, full-blown, right up to his
neck in water.
AN HON. MEMBER: Over his head!
MR. TULK: He is probably, before too long, going to find himself in over
his head, but welcome here anyway.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: Madam Speaker, let me say that some people in this House this
afternoon have said this resolution should not go through the full debate of the
Legislature. There is a suggestion that we should put the resolution and get it
done with. I disagree with that.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: Oh, no. It has been around here this afternoon; let's get it
done, let's get it over with.
It is a very important resolution that we are dealing with this afternoon,
because it points out the need for research and development in this Province if
we are going to succeed in this Province and have a leading-edge economy.
It also does one other thing for us. It is an opportunity for us all to stand
four-square in this House and say where we all stand on research and
development. It is an opportunity for every person here to say where they stand
on research and development in this Province.
It is very difficult to know where the Leader of the Opposition is coming
from on this issue, and I say that to him honestly and squarely. It is very
difficult to know if he knows where research and development money comes from. I
have heard him make a lot of statements over the years, but I have to say to the
Leader of the Opposition that I could not believe my ears. I listened intently,
and I apologize to him for a comment that I made on an Open Line show, to Bill
Rowe, when I said: He cannot be stunned. I do not believe he is stunned.
I do not believe he is, and I should have never used those words. I do not
believe the Leader of the Opposition is stunned, so I apologize to him for that.
But he certainly is confused, when he suggests that we should go to the federal
government and say to them, for the money that they have budgeted for research
and development: You have to give us that health care.
Obviously, the gentleman has to be confused when he says that.
AN HON. MEMBER: You hope.
MR. TULK: I know he is confused. He has to be confused, to think that
under CHST we get so much money for health and education, and that somehow or
another the federal government is going to reach over into research and
development funds and bring it over into the health pot and then say: Here,
Newfoundland and Labrador, take some money.
That was the statement that he made on the Open Line shows in this Province.
That was the statement that he made. There is confusion every way you look at
it. There is confusion every way you look at what the Leader of the Opposition
is saying. For example, on the Open Line show on June 7, 2001, the Leader of the
Opposition made this point: Well, you know, if Minister Tobin is able to give
$1.5 billion guarantees to Bombardier for aircraft contracts, why can't the
federal government sit up and help us along with our project - he was referring
to the Lower Churchill at the time - and guarantee that?
Then he goes on, on September 18, and this is the confusing part -
AN HON. MEMBER: You are confused.
MR. TULK: No, I am not. I know where I stand.
Surely the federal government is not going to take upwards of $100 million
R&D dollars that should be going to health care and education in this
Province, and give to a wealthy multinational.
He says, at another point on VOCM Open Line, on September 19, 2001: It is
always good to get federal money, you know, at any point in time.
If that is not confusion, Madam Speaker, I have never heard it.
Then, he leaves that, so I get on the Open Line show and take a little run at
him - only a little run, that is all; I was not insulting to him - only a little
run at him, and said: The hon. gentleman cannot be stunned, and he is not
stunned. The man is a Rhodes scholar. He cannot be stunned. But Bill, I said, he
is confused. The hon. gentleman has to be confused because surely he knows that
you cannot take money out of the research and development pot federally and move
it over into health care.
Then he goes down and he speaks to the Federation of Labour and he says: Did
you hear that Beaton Tulk, talking about how I should not be saying research and
development money will go into health care? He says: Why doesn't he take
$100,000 each and give it to 1,000 companies in the Province?
Well, I have to tell him something. That is not, again, how the system
federally works. I do not go up to the federal government and say: Give me
$100,000 to give to 1,000 companies. The companies, first of all, have to apply.
Does he know that there is a 15 per cent tax credit, which amounts to a grant,
for R&D in this Province? Does he know that companies through the NRC can
apply for that at any time?
I will accept the kind of criticism that the former Leader of the Opposition,
the Member for Kilbride, puts forward, and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi. That is the kind of debate you expect in this House. That is what
oppositions do. They prod you to do more, and so they should. That is what
oppositions do and what they should do, prod you to do more; but to totally
misunderstand the system. Then he goes on to imply - I have it here somewhere -
AN HON. MEMBER: You are confused, are you?
MR. TULK: No, I'm not. Don't ever believe it for a minute. I am not
confused.
He then goes on to say in his news release - it is here in some of this
material, where he goes on to say: you are given the money, you are making it
more profitable. Why should we fund Inco, that great company? Doesn't he
realize that if the federal government takes some of that money - which he has
been saying in one mouthful, goes Bombardier and goes west of Ottawa. If you
take some of that money and put it into Newfoundland, put it into Inco's
research, maybe that gives the Minister of Mines and Energy, and myself, as the
minister responsible for industrial benefits, to go say to Inco: There's more
that should come to Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TULK: Does he not understand that? If it goes to their bottom line we
are going to demand more from them out of their bottom line. Does he not
understand that? There is a matter of total confusion.
I have to say to you, the former Leader of the Opposition, the person who is
now my critic for Minister Industry, Trade and Rural Development, there was no
confusion when he was there. He was not confused. He said in his Blue Book that
the PCs will aggressively pursue research and development dollars. On this one
point, Madam Speaker, I have to say to him that he is not confused.
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point or order, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. E. BYRNE: It is fine to debate the issue, and I appreciate that, but
the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development on many occasions when I
sat as Leader of the Opposition, said that I was confused, was ill intent, didn't
know what I was talking about, didn't know the process. So, if you want to do
it, do it right. If you want to say it, say it right, but don't try to say one
thing one moment and something else the next.
That is the only point I want to make for clarification, Madam Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.
MR. TULK: Madam Speaker, I have to say to the former Leader of the
Opposition that there were times when he may have been off the mark, but I don't
think I ever said to him that there was ill intent. I don't believe, ever, I
said that to him. I think he is a very honourable gentleman.
Madam Speaker, let me come back to how important research and development is.
Let me try to tell the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon how important
research and development is. The Premier brought up about research and
development in the cable business and the Leader of the Opposition got all
upset. He started to squirm and say: Not me, I put my money in. I am sure you
did, but I have to say to him that in the field of information technology, which
is part of cable television, there must have been a great deal of public money,
not necessarily in your station, but there must have been a great deal of
research and development money which went into that industry, otherwise you
would have never had, I say to the Leader of the Opposition - and I am proud of
you for making a fortune; proud of you. Any Newfoundlander who makes money is
not (inaudible) with me, but I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition, that
without that research and development money having gone into the information
technology industry, that broad industry, it would never have been available for
you to make your fortune. I have to say that to you, and that is correct.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: No, I am not being personally critical of you, so don't get
upset. Don't take any offense. I want you to stay cool in your seat because I
understand you have a reputation for going off the - you know - sometimes, but
don't do that. Don't bother that. I am not insulting, not at all.
I will just point out to the hon. gentleman, I will just point out to this
House, I was with a group of students this morning, and Dr. Agnus Bruneau, down
at the Newfoundland Science Centre; a group of Grade 5 students from Holyrood.
Here is the Newfoundland Science Centre going around rural Newfoundland
promoting the i